Interpreting 'Judgment' In Construction Act Appeals: Key Takeaways From MGW-Homes Design Inc v. Pasqualino

Introduction

In the recent case of MGW-Homes Design Inc. v. Pasqualino,¹ the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed the novel issue of the correct appeal route for orders related to the enforceability² of adjudicators' determinations under Ontario's Construction Act (the "Act"). The key question was whether an order vacating a writ of enforcement issued in connection with an adjudicator's determination qualified as a "judgment" under section 71(1) of the Act, which would determine if the appeal should be heard by the Divisional Court. The Court, reviewing established case law, confirmed that the term "judgment" should be interpreted broadly, and held that the order vacating a writ of enforcement, related to an adjudicator's determination, qualifies as a "judgment" under section 71(1), falling under the appeal provision of the Act.³