David Scrimshaw's Library tagged Construction → View Popular

Filter:
All
Annotated

06 Nov 09

CanLII - 2009 CanLII 60408 (ON S.C.)

Construction Lien Trust [11] That decision makes the point that where a breach of trust is alleged, the initial onus is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of the trust by showing three elements:
(a) the owner received money on account of the project;
(b) that the plaintiff supplied materials on that project; and
(c) the plaintiff was not paid.

www.canlii.org/...2009canlii60408.html - Preview

Law Construction Lien Trust accounts Payment

[32] In my view the defendants
cannot be allowed to benefit from their refusal to supply the plaintiff with the
required information. It would be deleterious to provide an incentive to
trustees to avoid keeping beneficiaries informed, despite their requests. The
defendants should not benefit when the beneficiaries act reasonably in the face
of an information gap created by the defendants. The advantage of this principle
is that it provides an incentive for the contractor or owner to be forthcoming
in the provision of information, but still requires the supplier or
subcontractor to be proactive in making information requests. In other words if
there is a duty imposed on the one party to inquire, there is a like duty on the
other party to answer

21 Oct 09

Heyes v. City of Vancouver, 2009 BCSC 651 (CanLII)

[148] The indisputable fact which I find on the evidence in this case is that the use of cut and cover construction was endorsed because it was cheaper and, in combination with some other aspects of the SNC-Lavalin/Serco proposal, reduced cost by more than $400 million so as to permit construction within the range of public funding commitments. The reduction in cost was achieved by imposing an unacceptable burden on Hazel & Co. A loss of more than $500,000 over four years resulting from the decline in sales and the reduction of approximately 50% in gross profit caused solely by cut and cover construction, cannot be regarded as a tolerable or acceptable burden which should be absorbed by Hazel & Co. as its contribution to the realization of a project of general public utility

www.canlii.org/...2009bcsc651.html - Preview

Law Nuisance Municipal roads Construction

09 Oct 08

Sunview Doors Limited v. Academy Doors & Windows Ltd., 2008 CanLII 49336 (ON S.C.D.C.)

[51] This panel of the Divisional Court has co-ordinate jurisdiction to the panel in Central Supply. We respectfully disagree with the conclusion reached in that case that there must be synchronization between the lien provisions and the trust provisions in the CLA in that, in both cases, the supplier must establish intent that materials be used for the purposes of a known and identified improvement. There is no language in s. 8, s. 14 or s. 15 that suggests that intent is a requirement. Nor does the definition of “improvement” or s. 1(2) refer to intent. Indeed, the only reference to intent is found in the definition of “materials” in s. 1(1) where intent is an alternative basis for making a claim based on use, not on destination.

www.canlii.org/...2008canlii49336.html - Preview

Law Construction Lien Trust

[54]
We have
found that Central Supply is distinguishable on the facts. However,
had we been unable to distinguish it, we would not have applied its conclusion
that the supplier must have intended that its materials be incorporated into a
specific and identifiable improvement in order to attract a trust remedy