In Jamrik v. 2688126 Ont. Inc. (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court allowed a JR against a Construction Act adjudicator's 'prompt payment' decision that "the contract was not “completed” within the meaning of the Construction Act".
Here the court notes that it is at the judge's discretion to consider technically unnecessary issues in deciding cases:
The Adjudicator did not make factual findings about these two issues.
[14] It is a matter of discretion whether to address alternative theories of a point under decision. However, it is often a service to the parties and to the administration of justice to make factual findings in respect to alternative arguments, so that a reviewing court will have the necessary factual findings to assess and decide all available arguments. Here, if the Adjudicator had also gone on to make the necessary factual findings about whether any contract work remained for completion and its value, this court might have been able to dispose of this matter on a final basis, rather than sending it back for a fresh determination.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
