The applicant sought judicial review of two prompt payment adjudications under the Construction Act, arguing procedural unfairness.
The applicant alleged the respondent raised new reasons for non-payment not detailed in its Notices of Non-Payment and that the adjudicators unfairly denied the applicant's request to deliver reply submissions.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicators reasonably concluded the respondent merely elaborated on its original reasons, and the refusal of reply submissions accorded with the Act and the parties' agreed process.
