2025 ONSC 1228 – February 24, 2025
- Outcome: The court ruled that 2698368 Ontario Inc. ("269") did not have a valid construction lien on the Angus Property and ordered the security posted by Capitalplus Development Group Ltd. ("Capitalplus") to be returned.
- Reasoning: 269 was deemed a partner and "owner" in the renovation project, rather than a contractor. Under the Construction Act, an owner cannot lien its own property.
- Contractual Dispute: Despite rejecting lien rights, the court found a triable issue regarding breach of contract over 269’s renovation cost claims.
- Frivolous Claim Argument: Capitalplus alleged that 269’s claim was frivolous and vexatious due to insufficient supporting invoices. However, the court found 269 presented enough evidence to justify a trial.
- Costs Issue: The court reserved judgment on costs, directing both parties to file submissions.
2025 ONSC 1716 – March 18, 2025
- Outcome: The court awarded Capitalplus $25,000 in substantial indemnity costs, payable by 269 and its principal, Yang Yu, jointly and severally, within 30 days.
- Reasoning: The court found Yang Yu acted in bad faith by filing a lien claim despite knowing 269 was an “owner” and not entitled to a lien. She forced Capitalplus to incur costs for security, a vacating order, and legal proceedings.
- Personal Liability: The court pierced the corporate veil, holding Yang Yu personally liable. Dylan Yu was not found personally liable.
- Discounted Costs: Capitalplus sought $35,474.01 in full indemnity costs, but the court reduced the award since Capitalplus did not obtain a full dismissal of 269’s contractual claim.
