An 849-paragraph testament to the grinding weight of our civil justice system, the decision in Walsh Construction v. Toronto Transit Commission et al., 2024 ONSC 2782, was arrived at after a trial stretching over 19 months, and which included a combined total of 6,540 pages of affidavit evidence (not including exhibits) and 3,360 pages of closing submissions (plus an additional 10,341 attachments).
It is not just a wonder that the decision of Justice Hood was rendered less than nine months after the final day of trial; it is something of a minor miracle that any of the participants are still alive.
In spite of the achievement that the decision represents, its findings on flow-through claims of subcontractors represent a potentially troubling precedent for the industry, and are puzzling as a matter of law. They bear further scrutiny on the appeal that is currently underway.
Background
Walsh Construction Company Canada (“Walsh”) was the contractor for the Pioneer Village Station on the Toronto Transit Commission’s (“TTC”) Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension. The contract, along with the broader subway extension project, experienced delays. Walsh claimed against the TTC for $193 million; the TTC counterclaimed for $22 million.
A thorough dissection of the decision, previously discussed in this article by R. Bruce Reynolds, James Little, and Nicholas Reynolds, would be an extensive undertaking. This article focuses on only one aspect of the decision (also discussed by the previous article): liability for claims of subcontractors which a contractor seeks to flow through to an owner.
Please log in to read the full article.