Stay informed with the latest insights and updates

Since the early 2000s, Building Information Modelling (BIM) has become an increasingly popular workflow process in the architecture, engineering, and construction industry (AEC industry). While the rise of BIM software has allowed greater efficiency and collaboration in the AEC industry, it has also given rise to questions regarding copyright ownership: Who owns the copyright in a BIM model? What rights do collaborators have to use and modify the information in a design made using a BIM model?

On February 5, 2026, Pro-Demnity Insurance Company (the mandatory professional liability insurer for Ontario architects) published an article titled “Who Decides that a Contractor is in Default? A Guide for Architects” The message to architects administering construction contracts is unequivocal: under no circumstances should an architect make a determination that a contractor is in default or issue a Notice of Default. This is because a finding of default is, in substance, a legal opinion as to whether a contractor is in breach of contract – and architects are not in the business of giving legal opinions.

In the days of the Construction Lien Act (the “CLA”), it used to be said that holdback lost its character as holdback and became trust funds once liens expired. But that has not been the case since the introduction of the Construction Act’s amendments in 2018. On an improvement to which the Construction Act applies, owners cannot avoid holdback payment obligations simply by waiting (with one strange, recent caveat). This article provides a brief overview of how holdback has been treated when it comes time for payment by the owner.

Toronto’s preparation for the 2026 FIFA World Cup has introduced traffic and mobility measures that include restricting or pausing construction activities along key corridors during the event period, potentially impacting contractual performance and project schedules. Public reporting indicates that construction affecting major routes may be limited between May and July 2026, with some projects being sequenced or temporarily paused to accommodate traffic management and event logistics, creating foreseeable, non-project-specific constraints. In certain cases, active works may be stopped and resumed following the tournament, with associated demobilization and remobilization costs and schedule impacts falling to be addressed under the applicable contract mechanisms.

Ontario’s adjudication regime under the Construction Act was designed to provide rapid, interim resolution of payment disputes in the construction industry. Since the onset of statutory adjudication in 2019, the Divisional Court has been called upon with increasing frequency to delineate the boundaries of judicial oversight of adjudicators’ determinations. Sayers Foods Ltd. v. Gay Company Ltd., 2026 ONSC 918, is not only the latest notable Divisional Court pronouncement on statutory adjudication, but it also addresses matters of general importance beyond the Construction Act: allegations of fraud, delay claims, adjudicator bias and the treatment of evidence on judicial review.

Ontario has implemented significant amendments to the Construction Act and its regulations effective January 1, 2026, aimed at accelerating cash flow, clarifying rights, and refining adjudication and trust mechanisms across the construction pyramid. This article condenses the principal changes and their practical consequences for construction practitioners in Ontario.

The Canadian Construction Documents Committee (CCDC) recently issued updates to four of its standard form contracts. This article focuses on changes to the following three contracts:

• CCDC 5A – Construction Management Contract – For Services;
• CCDC 5B – Construction Management Contract for Services and Construction; and
• CCDC 17 – Stipulated Price Contract Between Owner and Trade Contractor for Construction Management Projects (collectively, the “2025 CM Contracts”).

On June 16, 2025, new Rule 49.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure came into force. The rule codifies a line of case law which imposed significant consequences on parties who failed to disclose partial settlements. This article reviews the requirements of the new rule and provides practical guidance for practitioners navigating the transition.

Picture this – you are subcontractor who has been contracted to build, weld, and otherwise complete the structural steel component of a commercial building. Your team finishes the welding – only to realize afterward that none of the workers were certified by the Canadian Welding Bureau (“CWB”), nor were they supervised by someone who was. You submit your invoice to the general contractor or the owner, but payment is refused due to "deficiencies." Can you still enforce your right to payment? According to the common law in Ontario, the short answer is unlikely.

On April 17, 2025, Earth Boring Co. Limited (EBCL) sought protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the CCAA). Among the provisions of the court’s initial order was a temporary stay preventing claims being made on certain performance bonds. This temporary stay led some in the construction industry to question the value of performance bonds during an insolvency. The outcome of the EBCL case, however, demonstrates the objectives of the CCAA process can be achieved without prejudicing the rights of project owners who want to ensure that their bonded contracts are completed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Ontario (Transportation) v. J & P Leveque Bros. Haulage Ltd., 2025 ONCA 573, provides critical guidance on the interpretation of dispute resolution provisions in standard form government construction contracts and the limitation periods pertaining to same.

This article explores including tolling agreements directly within one’s construction contract, obviating the need to commence an action prematurely to avoid losing their claim due to the Limitations Act.

When schedule delays impact important contract milestones beyond key deadlines, a recovery schedule may be the only chance a project has to achieve those milestones. This article explores lessons learned from two projects that were significantly delayed and used recovery schedules to achieve project success, and discusses guidelines from the AACE Recommended Practice 54R-07, “Recovery Scheduling – As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction.”

On May 28, 2025, a precedent-setting order was issued in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) proceeding preventing calls on performance bonds by obligees unless the written consent of the insolvent companies and monitor is obtained, or leave is granted by a commercial court judge.

The OBA Construction & Infrastructure Section has recently had the benefit of RSJ Firestone and the Associate Judges generously granting their time to speak to members of the Executive regarding vacating motions and ex parte court. Their Honours have asked the Section Executive to make members aware of certain procedures regarding vacating motions, and to solicit input regarding the potential resumption of in-person court appearances (note the survey link at the bottom!).

Over the course of my career in construction law, I have come to understand this truth: it takes ten years to get good at something, and ten years to earn a good reputation. Importantly, they are not the same ten years. The OBA has generously asked me to reflect on a career in construction law. Whether you are three, thirteen, or thirty years into practice, I hope these reflections offer something useful, on both the practice of law and the life that comes with it.  

In the fast-paced world of construction, delays and disruption can pose significant challenges to project success. In this Breaking Down the Walls series, Gary Brummer, a partner at Margie Strub Construction Law LLP, and Jacob Lokash, an associate at the firm, draw upon their extensive legal expertise to explore the complexities of construction delays. They have collaborated with Thomas Certo, a managing director in the Construction Disputes and Advisory Group at Ankura Consulting Group LLC, whose insights into the technical aspects of delay analysis provide a comprehensive perspective on this critical issue.

When is “judicial review” not judicial review? When it’s judicial review  of an adjudicator’s determination under the Construction Act. Why is it not judicial review? Because the drafters of the Construction Act used the wrong term when they were otherwise borrowing wholesale from the test to set aside an arbitrator’s award under the Arbitration Act.

For reasons not entirely clear to me (except perhaps my longevity), our section editor has asked me to reflect upon my career and offer whatever pearls of wisdom I may have gleaned.

As requested by the Editor of our Construction and Infrastructure Newsletter, Jay Nathwani, these career reflections are written for inclusion in our Section’s Newsletter Reflections Series. I’m pleased to have been asked to participate, although somewhat reluctant to provide personal reflections. In setting the stage for my remarks I’ll focus briefly on some historical aspects of my career and particularly on the broad range of diverse opportunities that I encountered that enabled me, over the years, to expand the scope of my practice in Canada and internationally.

In the fast-paced world of construction, delays and disruption can pose significant challenges to project success and execution. Throw concurrent delays into the mix, and it can be challenging to assign responsibility. This article seeks to demystify these concepts as they relate to delay claims and provide the reader with some useful takeaways for use in practice.

The pending amendments to the Construction Act (“the Act”) include a new requirement for the annual release of holdback, without the right to set off against holdback. However, while implementing a number of significant changes to the Act, the Legislature elected not to close an identified gap in the Act related to Public Private Partnership (“P3”) projects. As a result, a significant issue is created in the context of mandatory annual holdback released on P3 projects in Ontario.

In the fast-paced world of construction, delays can pose significant challenges to project success. In this Breaking Down the Walls series we simplify the fundamentals of construction delays, providing readers with the necessary tools to proactively identify and assess delays on their own projects in Canada, and focus on the damages that are often claimed as a result of schedule delay.

The type of property interest a mining company has in the lands dictates the manner in which liens are preserved and perfected. Consequently, when liening lands on which a mine is located the paramount consideration is determining the nature of the owner’s interest in the mining claim.

This is the third article in the 2024-2025 Newsletter’s Reflections series, featuring reflections on extraordinary careers by senior counsel in the construction bar.

This is the second article in the 2024-2025 Newsletter’s Reflections series, featuring reflections on extraordinary careers by senior counsel in the construction bar.