Construction and Infrastructure

Print this page

OVERVIEW

Whether in times of boom or bust, the one constancy in Canada’s major metropolitan centres is construction. Along with the commercial opportunities afforded to all manner of professionals come the risks inherent with such a venture. Work stoppages, municipal regulations, health and safety concerns, payment issues, and liens: each of these can cause interruptions and headaches in even the smallest project. With the recent update to the Construction Act along with the introduction of both the Prompt Payment regime and Interim Adjudication, specialized knowledge is more vital than ever in navigating this field.
 
The complex relations among the various parties who play a role in this process and the overlapping legal regimes that regulate those relationships require the assistance of a capable legal team.

SERVICES

Our experienced team of lawyers provides a full range of advice in all areas during the construction process, including related disputes and litigation. We routinely act for all significant stakeholders in this industry, including:

  • Owners
  • Developers
  • Architects
  • Engineers
  • Contractors
  • Sub-contractors
  • Sureties
  • Financial Institutions
  • Lenders 

 

Our Construction Law Group assists with all infrastructure issues, including construction litigation, liens, disputes before ODACC, trust claims, bond claims, contract interpretation, and all other areas of concern that could arise during a construction project.
 
Most importantly, we respond to the urgent needs of our clients and work with them to craft practical and timely solutions to minimize conflicts and, where possible, to avoid disputes entirely. Whether disputes are suited to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or the Courts, our wealth of experience ensures our clients receive the appropriate options to resolve matters favourably.
 
Notably, Howard Borlack, the co-chair of the group, has been recognized by Lexpert as one of Canada’s Leading Construction and Infrastructure Lawyers.
 
Please contact any member of the team for further information or assistance.
 
 

CHAIR(S)

MEMBER(S)

Next arrow
Prev arrow

FIRM CASES

So you want to amend a pleading? Not so fast!

Long fight ends in judgment to Plaintiff includes interest plus costs: Featured Case Study: Infinity Construction Inc. v. Skyline Executive Acquisitions Inc. et al.

PUBLICATIONS

View All
Default Causation And Standard Of Proof For A Hypothetical Pre-Trial Loss

First Published in Advocates Quarterly. This paper addresses whether the same principles regarding the “real and substantial possibility” standard of proof apply to a hypothetical past loss claim as they do to a hypothetical future loss claim, and the interplay between the two standards of proof applicable to hypothetical claims: balance of probabilities for the “but for” causation test, and “real and substantial possibility” for damages.

A costs rules original Improperly sued? Can you recover costs if the action is dismissed? Rule 23.05

In order to protect limitation periods, especially in cases where liability is yet to be determined, there is an obligation on counsel to identify, name, and pursue all parties who may be liable to the plaintiff(s). However, as the discovery process begins, parties often become aware that they have added in a party that will bear no liability to the plaintiff(s). Often, parties are able to consent to a dismissal or discontinuance without costs; however, there are cases in which defendant(s) will not go out without costs. In these cases, parties can move for a ruling under Rule 23.05...

A rule cp original All-Inclusive and Without Costs Rule 49 Offers

In 1985, Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was introduced to encourage parties to make and accept reasonable offers to settle. This has had the effect of discouraging parties from delaying the judicial process and increasing costs unnecessarily. Rule 49 has had a considerable effect on litigants by virtue of the risk of a large costs award following trial.

To trigger the cost consequences under Rule 49, an offer must meet strict requirements: