COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 94
powers under the new rule should not be used to resolve them. Greer J. of the Divisional
Court granted leave to appeal on the basis of the inadequacy of the motion judge‟s
reasons. The Divisional Court acknowledged the insufficiency of the motion judge‟s
reasons, but agreed with the result based on that court‟s review of the record.
[234] This appeal raises the novel interpretative issue of how Rule 20 should be applied
in the context of an action under Rule 76.
2. Facts
[235] In their statement of claim, the appellants allege that in the fall of 2007, the
respondent Scarfo demolished a semi-detached home that was in between their properties
on Woburn Avenue in the City of Toronto and began construction of two new homes.
They claim that their properties were damaged during the construction process in various
ways. For example, they say that the respondent Scarfo failed to shore up the soil along
the sides of the excavation site, which resulted in damage to their properties. They
complain of sinking land, cracked foundation walls, water damage, and cracked and
sloping paving. They also allege that cement was splattered on parts of their homes
during the construction. In addition, the appellants claim that the new properties were not
graded properly, which created a risk of drainage problems affecting their properties.
They seek joint and several damages totalling almost $90,000 against the respondent
Scarfo as the builder and the respondent homeowners.