Rona wins $1.99-million default judgment against construction-company director

Rona Inc. has obtained a $1.99-million default judgment against construction-company director Dylan James Sliter over unpaid building materials, with an Ontario judge finding both liability under a personal guarantee and breaches of the Construction Act's trust provisions.

In Rona Inc. v. 11449346 Canada Inc. et al, 2026 ONSC 5877, released October 20, 2026, Justice A. Doyle of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice stated the total judgment against Sliter as $1,991,350, including interest. The court also awarded Rona $22,700.37 in costs, including HST.

The ruling followed a motion heard in Ottawa on October 15. Sliter had been noted in default on March 13, 2026, and did not respond despite receiving notice. The decision was not a contested trial of the allegations.

Two supply accounts, but only one personal guarantee

The dispute concerned materials Rona supplied to 11449346 Canada Inc., operating as P3 Panel Company, and to United Edge Structural Components. The reasons identify 12574764 Canada Ltd. as United Edge's general partner.

P3's December 15, 2022 commercial credit application said it was building various projects in Eastern Ontario. Sliter personally guaranteed the company's payment obligations. Rona supplied materials between May 2024 and February 2025; by February 2025, the unpaid account stood at $858,618.97, including HST.

United Edge entered a separate supply agreement with Rona on April 8, 2024. Rona supplied it with materials from November 2024 to February 2025, leaving an unpaid balance of $564,685.65, including HST. Sliter did not personally guarantee that agreement.

That distinction mattered. Doyle found Sliter liable as guarantor for P3's debt, but Rona relied on statutory construction trusts to establish his personal liability for the United Edge debt and sought trust relief on both accounts. The guarantee and trust findings were not separate recoveries to be added together on top of the court's stated total.

The corporate defendants had been deemed bankrupt, and proceedings against them were stayed. Two other defendants, Marcin Kozniewski and Stephanie Ferrante in her capacity as trustee of Stefano Ferrante's estate, had filed a defence and crossclaim. The judge expressly said the order did not bind them.

Default does not automatically prove a trust claim

Ontario's civil procedure rules treat a defendant noted in default as admitting the factual allegations in the statement of claim. But Doyle emphasized that those admitted facts must still establish a legal entitlement to judgment.

Section 8 of the Construction Act protects amounts owing to or received by a contractor or subcontractor on account of an improvement's contract price as a trust fund for unpaid project suppliers and subcontractors. The trustee cannot divert those funds to its own use, or another use inconsistent with the trust, before the protected project debts are paid.

Section 13 can make a director, officer or person with effective control personally liable when they assent to or acquiesce in conduct they know, or reasonably ought to know, amounts to a corporate breach of trust. Personal liability does not follow simply from holding a corporate office or from an invoice going unpaid.

The judge reviewed earlier decisions distinguishing an ordinary unpaid supply account from a claim connected to construction improvements. In discussing Sunview Doors, Doyle explained that the supplier need not have known a precise project location when providing the materials: it may be enough to link the materials to an improvement for which the subcontractor was paid or owed money.

Detailed allegations and no accounting for project funds

Rona had not supplied particulars identifying the specific projects. Its claim said that information was known to the defendants and sought an order requiring them to produce it. The pleaded breaches included commingling trust funds, using them inconsistently with the Act and failing to reserve them.

Doyle distinguished the claim from an earlier case in which a bare assertion of breach of trust was insufficient. Here, Rona specifically pleaded that Sliter had received and appropriated or converted an amount at least equal to the debt, and had provided detailed particulars of the alleged breach.

The court found that the companies were contractors or subcontractors, that Rona supplied unpaid materials for Eastern Ontario construction sites, and that the companies had received or were owed amounts on account of project contracts. Once a statutory trust was established, the burden shifted to showing that the trust money had been properly applied.

Sliter neither opposed the motion nor provided evidence explaining how the funds were used. Doyle found he was a director with effective control of the companies and had assented to or acquiesced in conduct he knew or reasonably ought to have known breached the trust obligations.

Judgment and additional costs

The court granted the personal-guarantee judgment on the P3 account, made the construction-trust findings and stated the total judgment against Sliter, inclusive of interest, as $1,991,350.

Doyle awarded costs on a substantial-indemnity basis after finding that Sliter was aware of the proceedings but deliberately ignored them, including efforts to obtain information about the trust funds. The costs award covered fees and disbursements and was additional to the judgment.

The decision illustrates how construction-trust obligations can support personal liability even where a director did not guarantee a particular supply contract. Its limits are equally important: the result rests on the detailed allegations admitted through default, the supporting record and the absence of an accounting. It does not establish automatic director liability for every unpaid construction debt, resolve the claims against the defending parties or establish that Rona has collected the award.