Recent Cases
A proven track record of navigating complex construction disputes.
We represent clients across the sector with a focus on achieving early and cost-effective resolution with pragmatic results. Where formal proceedings are unavoidable, our clients’ successes reflect our commitment to securing favourable outcomes through strategic advocacy.
Defects & Deficiencies Cases
Saxberg v. Seargeant Picard Incorporated, 2024 ONCA 931 (CanLII)
Our client’s construction project was discovered to be defective and extensive damage required expensive repairs. We successfully resisted the contractor’s appeal of the Superior Court’s refusal to grant summary judgement and dismiss our client’s claim based on the contractor’s position that the limitation period had expired. The Court of Appeal also upheld the judge’s “boomerang” order that specifically stated that the claim was within the limitation period.
Counsel
Demikon Construction Ltd. v. Oakleigh Holdings Inc., 2024 ONSC 6261 (CanLII)
In the case of Demikon Construction Ltd. v. Oakleigh Holdings Inc., the court clarified that owners cannot receive credit for “jumping the rung” of the construction pyramid under Section 28 unless the recipient is a person currently holding a valid lien. The ruling overturned a lower court’s decision, emphasizing that these payments do not automatically reduce the security posted to vacate a lien if they occur after lien rights have expired.
Furthermore, the court highlighted the importance of verifying that funds are actually owed to the subcontractor, specifically when the contractor alleges deficiencies or delays. To avoid legal risks, owners ought to obtain formal acknowledgments or debt assignments rather than relying on moral obligations to pay trades directly. This legal precedent serves as a critical warning for payers to strictly adhere to the statutory requirements of the Construction Act when bypassing contractual privity.
We note that the defendants, Oakleigh and Aurelia, obtained leave to Appeal. The Court of Appeal is hearing the appeal in May 2026, and we will report back with the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Counsel
Saxberg v. Seargeant Picard Incorporated, 2024 ONSC 1079 (CanLII)
We acted for homeowners who had commenced an action against their builder to recover the cost of rectifying significant water penetration deficiencies to their $5 million custom home which were discovered more than three-years after the construction was complete, when they retained a roofer to perform certain roof upgrades.
We successfully defended the builder’s motion to declare the action expired and, also, obtained a “boomerang” order that the action was, in fact, obtained in time. The builder argued that the owners had discovered their claim when, upon completion of additional work, it had refused to perform which it said was neither necessary nor required by code.
The case is significant because it deals with the “plausible inference of liability” test for determining when the limitations clock starts ticking, as that test had been recently established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Grant Thornton LLP v. New Brunswick, 2021 SCC 31.
Counsel
1917196 Ontario Ltd. v. Kazmi, 2023 ONSC 384 (CanLII)
In this action, we successfully represented 4 homeowners in a lien action commenced by their builder in an action to recover substantial amounts allegedly owed in the construction of new homes for which it had failed to provide a Tarion new home warranty. The builder’s claim was dismissed and we obtained a Judgment in favour of the homeowners for over twice the quantum of the builder’s claim, along with an order that the builder’s principal pay the homeowner’s costs, personally, in the sum of $225,000.00.
Counsel
CRD v. Aviva, 2021 ONSC 1109 (CanLII)
In this matter, we successfully brought an application to compel an insurer to provide a defence to a counterclaim in circumstances where prior counsel had failed to give notice of the counterclaim to the insurer for almost 3.5 years. The issues on the application included the concepts of relief from forfeiture, waiver and prejudice in the context of an insurance policy as well as the application of the Insurance Act in that regard. The decision is currently under appeal.
Counsel
Jacobs v. Leboeuf Properties Inc., 2019 ONCA 551 (CanLII)
Here, a new-home builder had required the homeowner, in its form of contract, to obtain “all-risks” insurance coverage for “damage resulting from defective design, workmanship or material”. We acted for the homeowner and successfully appealed from a motion decision which had held that the homeowner undertaken in the contract to insure the contractor against its own deficiencies, such that the contractor could refuse to correct them and require the homeowner to call on his insurance, instead.