Mary Shenouda

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's $2,000,000 action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff, a contractor, sought additional payment for delays and increased costs incurred during a window replacement project at a maximum-security penitentiary.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory dispute resolution and notice provisions under the general contract after the government rejected its claim.

The plaintiff, H.R. Doornekamp Construction Ltd., and the defendant, Attorney General of Canada, both brought motions for summary judgment concerning a construction contract dispute.

Doornekamp sought partial summary judgment on liability for additional concrete work, arguing that a specific contract clause (GC6.4.3) constituted a "separate code" for payment, bypassing general dispute resolution (GC8).

Canada sought dismissal of Doornekamp's claim, arguing it was extinguished due to non-compliance with GC8 notice provisions, or alternatively, that genuine issues required a trial regarding the applicability of GC6.4.3 and the quantity of work.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether Doornekamp properly invoked GC6.4.3 and whether Canada's conduct affected Doornekamp's rights, particularly concerning the duty of honest performance and potential variation of contract terms by conduct.

Both motions for summary judgment were dismissed, with the court emphasizing the rarity and challenges of partial summary judgment.