In the recent decision, St. Pierre v. Chriscan Enterprises Ltd., the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered whether a claim by an owner against the project manager for breach of fiduciary duty fell within the wording of the arbitration clause in the project management agreement. The arbitration clause stated that disagreements “as to the interpretation [...]Continue Reading →
In John Barlot Architect Ltd. v. 413481 Alberta Ltd, the Alberta Court of Appeal has recently dealt with two thorny issues relating to a consultant’s services and construction liens: Can a lien shelter non-lienable work? And can a consultant’s services provided to one project be liened on a second project if they were also used [...]Continue Reading →
The principles of contract interpretation and quantum meruit are obviously quite distinct. But in its recent decision CH2M Hill Energy Canada, Ltd. v. Consumers’ Co-operative Refineries Ltd., the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has reminded us that they also give rise to two very different and separate payment obligations. There cannot be an obligation to make [...]Continue Reading →
The Trust Fund Provisions of the Construction Lien Act (Ontario): New developments relating to Suppliers and Third Parties By Thomas G. Heintzman O.C, Q.C. and Mekhriban Mamedova 6th Annual Current Issues in Commercial Litigation: Hamilton Law Association; March 2, 2011 1. Introduction The Construction Lien Act looks like a formidable statute to most [...]Continue Reading →
Builder’s Risk Insurance: the Dangers of Misunderstanding the Covered Risks Covering risks by appropriate insurance is an essential element in planning a construction project. But what happens when the insured owner, its insurance agent and the insurance company have a different understanding of the risk? The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently addressed this issue [...]Continue Reading →
Courts do not often examine the authority of a Consultant on a construction project and the liability consequences if the Consultant oversteps its authority. That issue was recently dealt with by the Queen’s Bench of Alberta in Online Constructors Ltd. v. Speers Construction Inc. A golf club hired a contractor, Speers, to repair a dam [...]Continue Reading →
Unjust Enrichment – Are the Services “Incontrovertibly Beneficial”? A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal outside the field of construction law reminds us of the principles of Unjust Enrichment that apply to the payment for services provided to a construction project. Unless the services were requested by the defendant, payment can only be [...]Continue Reading →
Building Contracts – Tenders – Bonds Today we will examine a recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario which dealt with Tenders for construction contracts. In Bois A. Lachance Lumber Limited v. Conseil Scolaire Catholique de District des Grandes Rivieres, the tender documents required the bidders to obtain performance bonds “upon acceptance” of [...]Continue Reading →
This website is intended to encourage discussion about recent developments in construction law in Canada.
The commentary in this website will relate to legislation and case law. Each item for discussion will be set out individually. The item will have a short description of the subject matter. Then, a lengthier discussion of the item will follow. The discussion is solely a matter of my personal view and opinion and does not constitute legal advice.
The discussion will generally follow the subjects addressed in my book: Heintzman & Goldsmith on Canadian Building Contracts (4th ed. Carswell). Reference to that text will be made from time to time as “CBC”, that is Canadian Building Contracts. However, a broader range of subjects will be addressed in this site than those addressed in CBC.
I welcome any views about the commentary in this website and hope that a dialogue will develop about the distinctive aspects of construction law in Canada.Continue Reading →