Legal Issues

Our law firm first became members of Landscape Ontario in 1998, and I first wrote a column for Horticulture Review in March of 1999.

Last year we revisited risk management under the winter maintenance contract. In doing so, we cautioned that an insurance crisis would soon be upon us.

If you don’t have a dispute with the client every now and then, you don’t have enough clients.

Consider the following hypothetical situation: A contractor is retained to erect a box-shaped building for an owner on lands that are now part of a subdivision.

Years ago, we acted for a subcontractor who found himself on the receiving end of charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Most of us have heard of the new home warranty, however, we may not understand how that program works.

If you have been working long enough as a construction contractor, you have had an odd client that, if you had to do it all over again, you would have never taken the job in the first place.

It is not unusual for even large companies to drop the ball and fail to keep up with registrations.

It is worth revisiting, and focusing in more detail on the “due diligence defence.”

The Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act (Violence and Harassment in the Workplace), 2009, comes into effect on June 15, 2010.

A costly dispute between a client and contractor.

As a landscape contractor, you no doubt have business loans that require regular payments. You probably also pay rent.

My father, Jack Kennaley, was an accountant. He was a good accountant and a good man. When I started my own construction business, many years ago, he had some advice for me. He told me that good small companies didn’t go under because of bad debts, or because their work was substandard.

Many employers, especially small and new businesses, are content to conduct the hiring process with a handshake and brief letter offering employment. Indeed, many employers in construction-related industries don’t even have that.

The best contract in the world may not, of course, protect the contractor from being sued for a slip and fall.

Eight to ten years ago, winter maintenance contractors faced a crisis: the number of insurance companies that would insure contractors was decreasing, while premiums were rapidly escalating.

As we have discussed in previous articles, the trust provisions of the Construction Lien Act impose obligations on anyone who receives monies for the supply of services or materials to an “improvement” and who in turn owes monies to someone else, further down the construction pyramid, for their supply.

You have completed your contract and sent your invoice, but no payment appears to be forthcoming.

Contractors will often find that their clients (property owners) wish to be added as an additional insured under the contractor’s liability insurance policy, for protection in the event that a claim arises in relation to the contractor’s duties.

In construction projects, the consultant undertakes an important, albeit sometimes confusing, role. The role of the consultant, in any construction project, varies depending on the terms of the contract and the parties to the contract.

This month, we will discuss how contractors, subcontractors and suppliers can better manage the risk of non-payment when problems begin to arise on a project.

As we move into uncertain economic times, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers should reassess how they manage the risk that someone above them in the construction chain may not be able to pay his bills.

Changes are coming to the Rules of Civil Procedure in Ontario, effective January 1, 2010.

Litigation can be time-consuming and expensive.

As discussed in previous articles, contractors and subcontractors have a lien for the value of the services or materials they supply to an “improvement,” as those terms are defined under the Construction Lien Act.

In the seminars and tutorials we give in relation to contracts, contractors will often tell us that their clients agree to clauses which substantially assign most of the risk associated with the work to the owner.

One aspect of the law of tendering, which is particularly misunderstood, is how the law applies to the relationship between a contractor and a subcontractor.

Recently, an appeals decision was published concerning a dispute between a contractor and homeowner in the context of the Consumer Protection Act.

In January 2007, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada released findings in a complaint filed under The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) by residential clients over a building supplier’s disclosure of their personal information to one of their former contractors.

The Personal Information and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA, is a relatively new private sector privacy law in Canada.

Recent events in relation to fuel prices and materials availability lead us to revisit ways in which contractors can better manage the risks associated with these concerns.

The following article is a scenario in regards to WSIB.

Last month, in the first part of an article on changes in commonly used construction documents, I wrote about the new CCDC 2-2008 Stipulated Price Contract.

Those of you who have bid to perform work in the industrial, commercial or institutional sectors, or in relation to subdivisions or custom-built homes, will be familiar with “CCDC” contracts and with the standard (or “master”) format for specifications.

As lawyers, we often caution about the risks you run if you are not careful about what you say to clients.

This month, we address issues faced by contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who wish to pursue claims against their clients for damages or additional compensation under a contract or subcontract.