An unsuccessful motion for an order pursuant to s. 47 of the Construction Lien Act brings up interesting issues post-Hryniak, says Toronto civil litigator Megan Marrie.

"I think what's interesting about this case is that it's one that has been decided since the landmark Supreme Court decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin," says Marrie, partner with Shibley Righton LLP.

"I find that this decision doesn't take into account pre-existing s. 47 case law," she tells AdvocateDaily.com. "In this respect, although the judge acknowledges this is the first s. 47 case since Hyriunk, he appears to ignore the preexisting case law that says that although it's akin to summary judgment motion, the authority you have under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not limit your power under s. 47 of the Construction Lien Act."

Click here for the full story