Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Enforcement of a fixed-price construction contract for commercial greenhouses and the plaintiff’s entitlement to the unpaid contract balance.
• Adequacy of the defendant’s compliance with discovery undertakings and a prior court order, and whether that justified striking his defence.
• Threshold for granting summary judgment where the defendant offers only bare assertions of delay and lost crop yield without documentary proof or quantified damages.
• Effect of the absence of any contractual term making completion by a specific date an express condition or trigger for damages.
• Role of a third-party witness affidavit (from the intermediary supplier) and its inability to establish causation or quantum of alleged loss.
• Application of proportionality and civil procedure rules to prefer a summary disposition over trial in a simplified procedure action.

Background and commercial relationship

The dispute arises out of a commercial construction contract between 2498623 Ontario Inc., carrying on business as Genesys Greenhouse Supplies & Services (Genesys), and Adam Macsai, who was engaged in commercial cannabis cultivation. Genesys is a privately held corporation whose business is constructing commercial greenhouses, while Mr. Macsai sought to build greenhouses to expand his cannabis production operation. The parties were introduced through Canadian Hydrogardens, a horticultural supplier that provided materials and services for commercial growing operations, and whose employee, Randy Hartog, later gave evidence in the proceeding. The relationship was purely commercial: Genesys was retained to design and construct greenhouses; Mr. Macsai was the customer intending to use them for his cannabis crop.

Contract formation and project timeline

In December 2016, Mr. Macsai first contacted Genesys to obtain a quote for the construction of three greenhouses to be used for growing cannabis. He told Genesys that his goal was to have his cannabis crop planted in the new greenhouses by the end of May 2017. In response, Genesys’ president, James Wiersma, advised that the greenhouses would likely take about ten weeks to complete from the time materials were delivered, and he provided a written quote dated December 2, 2016. The quote set out a fixed-price contract with the work scope and a list of items not covered under the contract, which would be billed as extras if requested. Although discussions began in December 2016, the contract was not accepted and signed by Mr. Macsai until March 6, 2017. Importantly, the contract stipulated that the estimated time for completion would run from the date Genesys received the order together with the required deposit. The fixed price of the contract was $275,391.17 inclusive of HST. That price covered the construction of the greenhouse structures, freight, and labour to build the greenhouses. Materials were delivered to the construction site on May 3, 2017, and notwithstanding various delays, the greenhouses were completed in the first week of July 2017. The time between delivery of materials and completion was approximately ten weeks, which aligned with the original ten-week estimate tied to material delivery.

Construction delays, performance, and payment issues

The project did not progress entirely smoothly. There were delays caused by the site not being properly levelled as required before construction began, as well as a slowdown related to electrical work at the site. These issues contributed to the greenhouses not being finished by the end of May or by the extended date of June 1, 2017, which Mr. Macsai said he needed for planting. Despite these difficulties, the court found that the construction was completed within approximately ten weeks after materials were delivered, consistent with the timing represented by Genesys and not shown to be unreasonable in light of the site conditions and electrical issues. Under the fixed-price contract, Mr. Macsai made payments totalling $184,241.99 and also paid $9,599.70 for extra services outside the scope of the contract. After crediting all payments, the balance owing under the fixed price was $91,149.18. Genesys issued its final reconciliation invoice on August 8, 2017, reflecting what had been paid and what remained outstanding. No further payments were made by Mr. Macsai on that balance or on the final invoice. By the time of the motion, Genesys claimed, and the court ultimately accepted, that it had fully performed the work under the contract and that the outstanding amount—subject to a small reduction in the damages calculation—remained unpaid.

Defence theory: delay and alleged lost crop yield

In response to Genesys’ claim for the outstanding contract balance, Mr. Macsai advanced a defence and counterclaim premised on alleged delay and resulting loss. He asserted that the greenhouses were not completed by the agreed deadline, such that he lost crop yield and suffered consequential financial losses. To support this theory, he pointed to discussions in which he told Genesys he needed the greenhouses completed in time to plant by May, later extended to June 1, 2017. The only supporting evidence he brought forward on the motion was an affidavit sworn in December 2022 by Randy Hartog, the Canadian Hydrogardens employee who had introduced the parties and supplied materials to Mr. Macsai. Mr. Hartog confirmed he was present at meetings between Mr. Macsai and Mr. Wiersma, heard Mr. Macsai communicate his required completion timeframe, and heard Mr. Wiersma say the project would be completed within that timeline. He also said the deadline was extended to June 1, 2017 and that the greenhouses were not completed by that date, leading to what he described as “lost crop yield” for Mr. Macsai. However, Mr. Hartog did not provide any particulars of the alleged loss—no figures, records, or explanation of how the claimed damages were calculated. His affidavit also noted that despite the alleged issues, Mr. Macsai ultimately paid his outstanding account to Canadian Hydrogardens in full after receiving an interest-free grace period. Crucially, Mr. Hartog also recited that there were delays due to grading issues and electrical work and, while he questioned the reasonableness of the delay, he did not actually contradict Genesys’ factual evidence on the causes and length of those delays.

Absence of contractual deadline and evidentiary gaps

A central issue for the court was whether the contract itself made timely completion by a particular date a binding term or condition giving rise to damages if breached. The written contract did not provide for a specific deadline for completion of the greenhouses. Instead, it tied the estimated time for completion to the receipt of the order and deposit, and the ten-week estimate was expressly linked to the delivery of materials. The evidence from Genesys, which the court accepted, showed that the project was completed within approximately ten weeks from delivery, despite the site and electrical issues. Against that contractual framework, the court found that even taking Mr. Hartog’s affidavit “at its highest,” it did no more than corroborate that Mr. Macsai had communicated a desired completion date and that the project was not finished by that target date. It did not establish that the contract was actually contingent upon meeting that deadline, nor did it set out any evidence of causation and quantum of loss. The court also noted that the assertion of “lost crop yield” was conclusory and in the nature of an unsubstantiated opinion, unsupported by farm records, revenue statements, or other documentation that would be expected in a claim for lost production. Beyond that, the court found that there was no evidence whatsoever of what damages, if any, had actually been suffered as a result of any delay. The defence and counterclaim therefore rested on bare allegations without a documentary foundation.

Procedural history and undertakings non-compliance

The matter had an unusually long and “tortured” litigation history despite the underlying facts being relatively straightforward. The Statement of Claim was issued in late 2018, and an amended claim followed. Initially self-represented, Mr. Macsai filed a Statement of Defence but failed to attend examinations for discovery, even in the face of court orders compelling his attendance. Genesys obtained an order striking his original Statement of Defence and default judgment was entered, leading to judgment-debtor examinations. After that, Mr. Macsai retained counsel and successfully moved to set aside the default judgment. With counsel’s assistance, he filed a fresh Statement of Defence, and examinations for discovery and undertakings followed. When counsel later went off the record and no new lawyer was retained, the case proceeded with Mr. Macsai self-represented again. The action was set down for trial, and a pre-trial conference was scheduled, but Mr. Macsai did not attend despite having received notice. Genesys then moved for an order compelling him to answer outstanding undertakings. On that motion, the court (per Hilliard J.) struck the matter from the trial list and ordered that Answers to Undertakings be provided within 30 days, failing which he would be noted in default. That order was made in Mr. Macsai’s presence. He did not comply in any meaningful way. Instead, he eventually returned a chart prepared by Genesys’ counsel with handwritten notes stating, in many instances, that he did not have the requested documents or information. No sworn affidavit or even an unsworn narrative response was ever provided to meet the substance of the order. Genesys then brought the motion that led to this decision, seeking to strike the pleadings or, alternatively, summary judgment. The motion was served in August 2025, and as of the November 20, 2025 hearing date, nearly three months later, no responding materials had been filed by Mr. Macsai.

Request to strike the defence

One branch of Genesys’ motion asked the court to strike the Statement of Defence because of the failure to answer undertakings and the breach of the interlocutory order. The court noted that a party has a legal obligation under the Rules of Civil Procedure to answer undertakings and comply with court orders and that it had jurisdiction under Rule 34.15(1)(b) and Rule 60.12 to strike a defence for non-compliance. It found that the “efforts” by Mr. Macsai—handwritten notes on counsel’s undertaking chart delivered late and without formal attestation—were “woefully inadequate” and did not amount to meaningful compliance with either his procedural obligations or the order. The court reviewed authorities such as Eloro Resources Ltd. v. Sovereign Capital Group (Ont) Limited, London Eco-Roof Manufacturing Inc. v. South River Developments Ltd., and Broniek-Harren v. Osborne, which collectively emphasize that striking a party’s pleading is an extreme measure reserved for cases where the defendant’s failure to comply with rules and orders effectively amounts to abandoning the right to participate in the proceeding. Applying these principles, the court recognized the tension between the policy favouring disposition of cases on their merits and the need for efficient, orderly, and timely processing of litigation. Ultimately, while critical of the non-compliance, the court concluded that in this particular case the conduct did not rise to the level of repeated, flagrant, and inexcusable disregard that would justify striking the defence. As a result, this branch of the motion was dismissed.

Summary judgment test and evidentiary record

The focus then turned to the alternative relief: summary judgment. Applying the framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court asked whether it could make the necessary findings of fact, apply the law properly, and achieve a fair and just result on the basis of the motion record, in a proportionate and efficient way. The action proceeded under the simplified procedure, which already emphasizes streamlined litigation. Genesys had filed a complete evidentiary record to support its claim for the unpaid balance, including contract documents, invoices, and evidence of performance and delays. In contrast, Mr. Macsai had filed no new responding materials and sought to rely on previously filed affidavits, but only one (the Hartog affidavit) was actually put before the court on this motion. The court reiterated that a party resisting summary judgment cannot rely on bare denials or unparticularized accusations. A responding party must “put their best foot forward” by providing admissible evidence on the key issues. Here, the court was satisfied that all of the evidence filed pointed to a complete absence of documentary support for the alleged delay-based damages and for the broader counterclaim. It also emphasized that, under the simplified procedure rules, parties cannot hold back evidence for a surprise appearance at trial; all evidence in chief must be presented through affidavits filed in advance. That framework makes “trial by ambush” impermissible, and self-represented status does not exempt a party from these requirements.

Finding of no genuine issue for trial

Based on the record, the court determined that there was no genuine issue for trial either on the defence or on the counterclaim. Even viewed favourably to the defendant, the Hartog affidavit did not establish that the contract imposed a binding completion deadline or that any causal link between the timing of completion and specific financial loss could be proven. Nor did it provide any numbers, documents, or objective material that could support a damages calculation. The court found that the “lost crop yield” allegation was nothing more than a conclusory statement. Equally important, the court concluded that Mr. Macsai had no documentary evidence at all to corroborate his case; all indications were that his position rested solely on his own assertions and the limited, non-quantified statements in the Hartog affidavit. On the other side of the ledger, the plaintiff provided clear evidence of the contract price, payments received, work performed, reasons for delays, and the amount still outstanding. In these circumstances, the court held that a trial would not add anything material and that summary judgment was the appropriate, just, and proportionate way to resolve the dispute.

Costs, interest, and overall outcome

Having found that striking the defence was not appropriate but that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted summary judgment in favour of Genesys. It accepted that Genesys had proved its damages claim and ordered monetary relief accordingly. The court fixed damages at $87,833.70, awarded pre-judgment interest calculated to November 20, 2025 in the amount of $129,772.49, and granted post-judgment interest pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure. It also addressed costs. Genesys had made a Rule 49 offer on August 26, 2025 which, if accepted, would have left Mr. Macsai in a better position than following the summary judgment ruling. In light of that offer, Genesys’ complete success, and the delays and additional steps attributable to the defendant’s conduct, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs after the offer date and fixed total costs at $13,415.53 inclusive of HST and disbursements. In sum, the successful party was the plaintiff, 2498623 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. Genesys Greenhouse Supplies & Services, which obtained a total quantified monetary award of $231,021.72 (being $87,833.70 in damages, $129,772.49 in pre-judgment interest, and $13,415.53 in costs), plus additional post-judgment interest to accrue under the Rules that the court did not quantify in a specific dollar amount.