Ontario Superior Court | Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP

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.

No Damages Awarded for “The Building that Blew Up”: $16 Million Damages Claim Dismissed After 13-Years of Litigation

Margaret Klassen November 10, 2025

Liability for the 2010 laundry-room gas explosion was admitted, so the only question at trial was damages, and the plaintiffs sought more than $16 million. After a four-week trial and nearly 13 years of litigation, Justice Schabas of the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the action entirely, finding the plaintiffs had not proven the explosion caused their claimed losses. Christopher Morrison and Margaret Klassen acted for the fourth parties.

Court Awards Costs of $195,000 After Two Day Motion

Chris Morrison September 27, 2024

The defence was universally successful on a hard-fought set of motions in Avedian v Enbridge Gas Distribution, including the plaintiff’s bids to strike the defences and to recuse the trial judge. The court awarded $195,000 in costs, well above the usual range for a motion, and its reasons are a clear reminder of the price unnecessary and tactical motions impose on clients and the court.

Huether v Sharpe: Continuous Liability of Municipalities in their Regulation of Residential Construction

Peter Reinitzer July 12, 2024

In Huether v Sharpe, the Township of McMurrich Monteith argued that negligence claims over a 1980s home build were barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period. The Superior Court disagreed: because the Township never closed the building permit, its duty to monitor the construction was ongoing, so the limitation period did not bar the claim and the summary judgment motion was dismissed. The decision is under appeal.