In J. Lepera Contracting Inc. v. Royal Timbers Inc. the Ontario Divisional Court recently dealt with a claim in unjust enrichment by a contractor who had done work for the purchaser of land. The purchaser had agreed to buy the land under an agreement of purchase and sale, but later defaulted under that agreement, and […]
Continue Reading →Contractor’s Contract With The Buyer Of Land Was A Sufficient Reason To Deny A Construction Lien And Unjust Enrichment Claim To The Contractor
Posted by: Construction Law Canada
Privy Council Defines Extra Work Under A Fixed Price Building Contract
Posted by: Construction Law Canada
In Mascareignes Sterling Co Ltd v Chang Cheng Esquares Co Ltd (Mauritius), the Privy Council of the United Kingdom recently set out some helpful principles to define the entitlement of a contractor to extra payment under a fixed price contract. The Privy Council held that the power to award extra payments under a fixed price […]
Continue Reading →Is A Notice Of Intention To Recover Costs A Proper Notice Of Claim Under A Building Contract?
Posted by: Construction Law Canada
In Ledore Investments Ltd. v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd., the Ontario Superior Court has recently held that a letter from a contractor to a subcontractor stating that “we intend to recover these costs from you” was a sufficient notice to the subcontractor to satisfy the notice provision of the building contract. Accordingly, the court set aside […]
Continue Reading →No Representation Clause Precludes Reliance On Pre-Contractual Representation
Posted by: Construction Law Canada
In Houle v. Knelsen Sand and Gravel Ltd., 2016 CarswellAlta 1582, 2016 ABCA 247, the Alberta Court of Appeal has recently held that a “no representation” clause precluded a party from relying on a pre-contractual representation to rescind the contract. Background Houle owned a parcel of land in which Houle believed there were substantial gravel […]
Continue Reading →Tort And Fraud Claims Fall Within Arbitration Agreement: Ontario Court Of Appeal
Posted by: Construction Law Canada
In Haas v. Gunasekaram, 2016 ONCA 744, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently held that claims in tort and fraud, and resulting claims to set aside the agreement between the parties, were within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal under an arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the court action between the parties was stayed. This decision is […]
Continue Reading →Standard Form Contracts Are To Be Reviewed On A Standard Of Correctness: Supreme Court Of Canada
Posted by: Construction Law Canada
In, Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the interpretation of a standard form contract is a matter of law alone, and not a matter of mixed fact and law. Accordingly, it is not sufficient for a judge to arrive at a reasonable […]
Continue Reading →Is The Charge Or Lien Against The Holdback Separate From The Lien Against The Land?
Posted by: Construction Law Canada
Summary In the recent decision in Brook Construction (2007) Inc. v. Blackwood Contractors Ltd, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal held that the charge against the holdback under s.12(5) of the Newfoundland and Labrador Mechanics’ Lien Act (the NL Act) is the same as, and “parasitic” to, the lien against the land. Accordingly, since […]
Continue Reading →Is A “No Oral Variation” Clause In A Contract Binding?
Posted by: Construction Law Canada
Summary In MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 553 and Globe Motors Inc v. TRW Lucas Varity Electric Steering Ltd. [2016] EWCA CIV 396, the English Court of Appeal has recently held that a contractual provision stating that the contract may only be amended by a written document signed […]
Continue Reading →Faulty Workmanship Exclusion In A Builders’ Risk Policy Excludes Only The Cost Of Re-Doing The Faulty Work: Supreme Court Of Canada
Posted by: Construction Law Canada
In Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37, the Supreme Court of Canada has issued a definitive decision about the scope of the “faulty workmanship” exclusion in Builders’ Risk insurance policies. The Supreme Court has held that the clause only excludes coverage for the cost of re-doing the faulty work, and […]
Continue Reading →