Peter Reinitzer | Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP title card reading "Ottawa Floods and Construction Defects," with a photo of partner Peter Reinitzer.

After the Deluge: When Ottawa Basement Flooding Points to Construction Deficiencies

Peter Reinitzer July 14, 2026

The historic Canada Day 2026 storm left thousands of Ottawa homeowners tearing out drywall and replacing ruined furnaces. But an extraordinary weather event does not absolve builders and engineers of liability: where one home floods while its neighbours stay dry, the real cause may be a hidden construction defect, and that opens a very different path to recovery, if you act before the limitation clock runs out.

Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP case comment card reading "Kamlu Engineering v 2502301 Ontario Inc" with the subtitle "A board-less corporation lacks the capacity to sue", from dcmlaw.ca.

Kamlu v 2502301 Ontario Inc: Why a Board-Less Corporation Cannot Litigate

Peter Reinitzer June 23, 2026

In Kamlu v 2502301 Ontario Inc, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed an action as a nullity after the defence discovered the plaintiff corporation had operated for years with no valid board of directors, its sole directing mind an undischarged bankrupt. Justice Chiappetta held that an officer’s authority cannot outlive the board, and that a trustee’s silence is not ratification. A cautionary tale on corporate governance and the capacity to litigate.

Navy Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP title card reading "Slatkovsky v Machado", with the line "A non-delegable permit duty and a dual agent's duty to disclose". Case comment, civil litigation, from dcmlaw.ca.

Unpermitted Renovations and Dual Agency: Key Takeaways from Slatkovsky v Machado

Peter Reinitzer June 19, 2026

A Puslinch century farmhouse looked beautifully renovated. The structural work had no building permit, and no one disclosed it. In Slatkovsky v Machado, the Ontario Superior Court held both the vendors and their double-ending agent liable, awarding the buyers $150,318 and confirming that the owner’s permit duty cannot be passed off to a contractor.

Latent Defects and Vendor Liability: Lessons from Austin v. MacFarlane

Peter Reinitzer March 6, 2026

A purchaser must inspect, but a vendor cannot hide behind “buyer beware” after actively concealing what is wrong with a home. In Austin v MacFarlane, 2026 ONSC 463, a North Bay buyer discovered foundation cracks, hidden mould, and an improperly built deck days after closing, with repairs exceeding $119,000. The Ontario Superior Court explains where vendor silence ends and active concealment begins.

No Damages Beyond “Buyer Beware”: Residential Renovations, the Building Code, and Construction Negligence

Peter Reinitzer January 20, 2026

When a homeowner takes on a major renovation, they can step into the legal shoes of a builder, and the duties that come with it cannot be signed away in a standard form contract. In Oliva v Dickson, 2025 ONSC 6666, the court mapped the intersection of contract, the Ontario Building Code, and the duty owed to later purchasers. The decision draws on Breen v Lake of Bays and Wesley v Geneau, two matters in which Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP acted for the successful parties.

Flooded Again? Why Your Insurance Denial Might Be a Clue to a Deeper Problem

Peter Reinitzer October 28, 2025

A property owner suffers a devastating flood, makes the panicked call to their insurer, and is told the policy does not cover “overland flooding,” or that the sewer-backup limit falls far short of the repair bill. For many that is the end of the road. But a denial can be a clue that the real problem is not the rain at all, but a construction defect in how the home was built, and that opens a very different path to recovery.

Feeling the Heat: A Homeowner’s Guide to Challenging an Insurer After a Fire

Peter Reinitzer September 23, 2025

Home insurance premiums are climbing across Ontario, hitting cottage-country communities like Huntsville especially hard, as extreme weather and wildfire risk reshape the insurance landscape. The Insurance Bureau of Canada reported over $8 billion in catastrophic losses in 2024. For homeowners facing a denied or underpaid fire claim, this is a guide to scrutinizing the denial and pushing back.

The High Cost of Unreasonable Conduct: Why a “Hardball” Litigation Strategy is a Costly Gamble

Peter Reinitzer September 9, 2025

Offer nothing, force the plaintiff to finance a trial, and hope they fold: it is a familiar defence gamble, and a growing line of Ontario cases shows how badly it can go. In Barry v Anantharajah, 2025 ONCA 603, a defendant who never made a monetary offer faced a costs award reported to dwarf the plaintiff’s modest $16,160 recovery. The Court of Appeal’s message is plain: a reasonable offer, even a small one, is a vital tool for managing litigation risk.

A Green Light for Pierringer Deals: How the Court in Cadieux Emboldens Settling Parties

Peter Reinitzer June 9, 2025

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has again signalled how strongly the law favours settlement, even where a non-settling party may face real prejudice. In Cadieux v Cadieux, arising from a catastrophic multi-vehicle collision involving two children, the court treated the finality offered by tools like Pierringer Agreements as the priority, leaving co-defendants to manage their own exposure to joint and several liability rather than looking to the court for protection.

First Court of Appeal Decision Released in 2025 a Win for Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

Peter Reinitzer January 5, 2025

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s first decision of 2025, Kramer v Ballantyne-Gaska, is a win for the firm’s clients. The Court dismissed the vendors’ appeal in full, upholding findings of breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation over undisclosed, non-compliant underground gas tanks, and rejecting their attempt to reduce the damages on a betterment theory.