b'BENCHMARKSCourt of Justice dismissed a motion forWhile no reasons were given byNote: This article is of a general nature summary judgment where the plaintiff, athe Supreme Court for not hearingonly and is not exhaustive of all possible residential home developer, was unablethe appeal, the dismissal confirmslegal rights or remedies. In addition, to present evidence that there was nothat, in the event of terminationlaws may change over time and should issue requiring trial.for convenience, a Court will awardbe interpreted only in the context of Third Line sought judgment for thedamages based on the minimumparticular circumstances such that payment of a final instalment of aperformance principle, which awardthese materials are not intended to be residential home, in the amount ofwill be the least burdensome to therelied upon or taken as legal advice or $57,171.41. Third Line hoped to avoiddefaulting party and the least profitableopinion. Readers should consult a legal trial by showing the Court that thisto the non-breaching party.professional for specific advice in any matter related simply to an particular situation.unpaid invoice. Alexandre Mireault is a lawyer with MLT Aikins LLP who practises The defendant, however, invoked ain the construction litigation department. He can be reached at lack of substantial completion as wellamireault@mltaikins.com or (204) 957-4642.as uncorrected deficiencies to justify the refusal to pay the final instalment to Third Line. To further complicate matters, the defendant was refusing to allow the plaintiff the opportunity to correct the deficiencies. Questions persisted as to whether Third Line was responsible for damages related to moisture penetration. Neither party had provided expert evidence on this issue.The Court rejected the motion for summary judgment. What had begun as a relatively straightforward unpaid invoice had blossomed into a hotly contested dispute where unremedied deficiencies persisted, and where mould may have developed. In these circumstances, the Court had noVoid Form Components that Completelyproblem concluding that there wereIsolate Concrete From Expansive Soilsgenuine issues requiring trial. TheWhen Used Together as a SystemCourt was critical of the parties failure to present expert evidence, implying that, had it received an affidavit fromCost-Effective, Assembled, Easy-to-an expert, the motion may have beenHandle Carton Form Sheets to Createdecided differently.Void Space Under Concrete StructuresThe 2018 modifications have ensured that the motion for summary judgmentUnique, Knockdown Void Form thatwill remain a very useful tool toCreates Space Under Structuralaccelerate the resolution of a dispute,Foundations and Saves Shipping Costsor even to simplify proceedings and set milestones that will allow for the rapidInnovative Systems that Support andresolution of a dispute. The lawyers in the construction law practice area atSurround Pipes Under Slabs, PreventingMLT Aikins are available to assist you inDamage from Expansive Soil Pressuresdetermining if your dispute lends itself to a motion for summary judgment.Waterproof Void Form Containing* Flexible Plastic Components that willIn Issue 4 of the Winter 2018 editionPerform Successfully in Wet Conditionsof this publication, we presented an overview of the principles of termination for convenience, as discussed in Atos IT Solutions v. Sapient Canada Inc. At the time of publication, the decision was subject for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; that application has since been dismissed. Issue 3FallEdition 2019 BUILD MANITOBA 35'