Paul Conrod

The Ministry terminated the respondent contractor's right to work on a dam project and subsequently barred the contractor from bidding on Ministry projects for two years.

The contractor initiated arbitration for several claims under the dam contract, including a claim for damages related to the bidding disqualification (Claim #7).

The arbitrator ruled he had jurisdiction over Claim #7.

The Ministry applied to the Superior Court for a de novo determination of jurisdiction.

The court held that Claim #7 was not arbitrable because it related to decisions made outside the scope of the dam contract's arbitration provision, which was limited to claims arising out of the performance of that specific contract.

The plaintiff demolition subcontractor brought a lien action for unpaid work, and the defendant general contractor counterclaimed for damages caused when the plaintiff severed an underground electrical duct bank, causing a power outage at a wastewater treatment plant.

The court found the plaintiff breached its subcontract and was negligent by failing to review drawings, obtain locates, and follow its own demolition plan.

However, the court also found the defendant 15% contributorily negligent for failing to communicate its knowledge of the duct bank to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's lien claim was offset against 85% of the defendant's damages, resulting in a net judgment payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the MCI and Zebu Defendants for breach of contract regarding unpaid construction invoices.

The defendants had been noted in default and were deemed to admit the allegations in the statement of claim under s. 54(4) of the Construction Act.

The court found the evidence corroborated the claim and granted default judgment in the amount of $116,382.46.

Following precedent, the court determined it must issue a report rather than a judgment, as the motion took place within a reference.

Substantial indemnity costs of $7,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The applicant, a care facility operator, brought an application seeking declarations that the respondent County acted in bad faith by not renewing their annual services agreement under the Domiciliary Care Program.

The County had declined to renew the fixed-term contract due to a history of non-compliance, particularly regarding Fire Code violations and the delayed installation of a sprinkler system.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the contract had a clear end date with no automatic renewal clause, and therefore the County owed no duty of good faith to renew it.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence of bad faith, noting that the County had repeatedly communicated its concerns and provided reasons for non-renewal despite having no contractual obligation to do so.