In Sayers Foods Ltd. v. Gay Company Ltd., 2026 ONSC 918, the Ontario Divisional Court upheld an adjudicator's determination that ordered an owner to pay $685,574.91 to its general contractor and dismissed every ground of judicial review raised under section 13.18(5) of the Construction Act. The decision is the clearest statement yet that complexity does not push a payment dispute out of adjudication, and that a judicial review of an adjudicator’s determination can succeed only where the applicant establishes one of the grounds enumerated in section 13.18(5). The dispute Sayers Foods' grocery store in Apsley, Ontario, was destroyed by fire in December…

Ontario owners should no longer think of adjudication as a narrow payment process that disappears when the work is complete. As of January 1, 2026, the adjudication regime gives parties specific deadlines to start adjudication, permits a broader range of disputes to be brought under it, and makes early procedural decisions more important. Before turning to the practical implications for owners, it helps to see the process as a whole. The flowchart below provides a high-level overview of the first steps in adjudication under Ontario’s 2026 regime. Adjudication may now arrive after the project appears to be over One of the most important…

Owners of Ontario construction projects can no longer treat non-compliant invoices as something that can be addressed later. As of January 1, 2026, an invoice that does not meet the "proper invoice" requirements of the Construction Act can still be deemed a proper invoice, unless the owner responds in time. What changed The amended Construction Act updates the "proper invoice" framework: Section 6.1(1) lists the requirements for a "proper invoice". Section 6.1(2) provides that an invoice that does not meet the proper invoice requirements is deemed to be a proper invoice unless the owner, within 7 days of receipt, gives written notice of the…

For decades, owners have treated the 10% statutory holdback as the ultimate safety net. As of January 1, 2026, that mindset can create real cash-flow, administrative, and contract-administration risks for longer projects. Those issues are manageable, but only with a deliberate approach to budgeting, tracking, and contract drafting.

On Wednesday, February 4, our very own Chief of Everything, Mike Brown, participated in a career panel discussion at the University of Toronto as part of their backpack2Briefcase series.

New year, new hire.

We are thrilled to announce that Anatolii Panin has officially joined as our first ever articling student.

Construct Legal is 4 years old.

We had a big year of growth in 2025.

Join us for “2025 Wrapped with Construct Legal”

We’re turning the biggest changes in Ontario construction law into a playlist-worthy recap webinar. Think Spotify Wrapped, but for lien deadlines, adjudications, and the new CCDC 2025 contracts.

Ontario’s Construction Act is undergoing significant changes. These changes have been in the works since the Act had an expert review in 2024. There have been revisions and consultations since the changes were originally introduced.

Welcome, Lewis!

Happy Thanksgiving! Thanks for helping us lay the groundwork for another great year together. We appreciate the support of all of our clients, friends, families, colleagues and champions. Faren Bogach, Andrew Gurlesky, Paul Conrod, James De Melo, Rapti Ratnayake, Lewis Waring, Mike Brown, and Tara Hobel

The cost-plus model is a common form of construction contract where the client pays the contractor for the actual cost of the work (i.e. the actual costs of the material, equipment, and labour) plus an agreed percentage or fee for the contractor’s overhead and profit. CCDC 3 is an example of a cost-plus contract. Cost-plus contracts can be used both by an owner who directly retains a contractor, and a contractor or subcontractor that subcontracts to a trade or supplier. In recent years, the court has released cases with important considerations for owners, contractors, and subcontractors using cost-plus contracts. We discuss…

We have been litigating matters and drafting contracts about proper invoices and notices of non-payment. We have prepared a short webinar to provide tricks to avoid the traps of prompt payment. Whether you're a contractor, consultant, or owner, this session will provide valuable insights to help you stay compliant with Ontario’s prompt payment rules. Please join Paul Conrod and Rapti Ratnayake on Friday June 20 from 10:00 to 11:00 ET to make sure you are up to date with current and future prompt payment rules around proper invoices and notices of non-payment.

In Samhadanah v BOS Properties Holdings Corp, the court dismissed a motion to declare a construction lien expired, citing a failure to meet the high evidentiary standard.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently addressed the duty of fairness in procurement in the case of Canada Forgings Inc. v Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, 2024 ONCA 677.

The decision in Re Clarkson Road Developments GP Inc., (“Clarkson Road”) offers a helpful review on the issue of lien priorities versus mortgage priorities under the Construction Act (the “Act”).

When a client or potential client calls us to ask a question about their matter, our response is what does the contract say? Sometimes a client can answer, but other times there is silence

In the recent case of Aroma Franchise Company, Inc. v. Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc., 2024 ONCA 839, the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed an appeal, overturning the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice about whether an arbitrator is required to disclose as a potential conflict of interest that the arbitrator is presiding over more than one arbitration involving lawyers of the same firm.

Posting security with the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice?
The Toronto Courthouse recently advised that “with any issued and entered electronic court order not (emphasis added) digitally signed, the Accountant of the Superior Court requires that the moving party lawyer include with the issued and entered electronic order, a signed and notarized certificate saying the following: ‘I certify that this is a true copy of the court order sent to [name], counsel for [party] by [name], [job title], of the Superior Court of Justice in respect of [court action] by email correspondence on [date].’

The recent case of Dalren Limited v Loadstar Trailers, 2024 ONSC 7144 addresses the transition provisions under s. 87.3 of the Construction Act (the “Act”)1 and serves as useful reminder regarding the definition of “owner” under the Act. FACTS: Before December 11, 2017, Loadstar Trailers Inc., (“Loadstar”) and 1978317 Ontario Ltd. (“197”) sought a proposal from Dalren Limited (“Dalren”) to construct a manufacturing facility on a property to be purchased by 197 at Thompson Street in Coburg. In 2017, Dalren presented a preliminary proposal to build the facility at Thompson Street in Coburg. At the time of negotiations, 197 did not own the…