English    

Bienvenue sur le site du CCCL

Notre mission
La mission du Collège est de faciliter et d’encourager l’association d’avocats exceptionnels qui se distinguent par leurs compétences, expériences et haute performance et éthique professionnelle tant dans la pratique que dans l’enseignement de la loi de la construction et qui se vouent à l’excellence de la pratique du droit de la construction.

Par l’entremise de tels membres, le Collège s’efforce à instruire, améliorer et renforcer la pratique et la compréhension du droit de la construction dans un environnement de collégialité et de fraternité.

Officiers du Collège

CCCL Président
William L. (Mick) Ryan, Q.C.

Contact renseignements

c/o Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales
Barristers & Solicitors
Purdy's Wharf Tower One
Suite 900
P.O. Box 997
1959 Upper Water Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia  B3J 2X2
Tel: (902) 420-3200
Fax: (902) 420-1417

E-mail: wryan@smss.com
Website: www.smss.com


Ancien président immédiat
Daniel Ayotte, Q.C.

Vice-président
W. Andrew McLauchlin

Secrétaire
Louis-Michel Tremblay

Trésorier
Howard Wise

Coordonnateur du programme
Derek Brindle, Q.C.


Directeurs du Collège

Inclus tous les officiers répertoriés ci-haut, de même que :

Olivier Kott

David Marr

Kenneth McCullough, Q.C.

Marina Pratchett, Q.C.

Joel Richler

Richard Shaban


Shea N. Bunston est le président du Comité du site web du CCADC. Tout courrier doit lui être acheminé au sheabunston@rogers.com ou à Nicholas J. Dasios de Erevna Technologies pour toutes questions ou commentaires au sujet de ce site.

 

CCCL Nouvelles

Announcements

MARK YOUR CALENDAR!

The 13th Annual Canadian College of Construction Lawyers Conference will be held May 27 – May 30, 2010 at The Westin Nova Scotian Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Conference details and agenda to follow.


Bruce Reynolds

Featured Article,

March 2010

Tercon Contractors Ltd.

v. British Columbia (Transportation and Highways), 2010 SCC 4

 

© 2010 Bruce Reynolds

and Sharon Vogel

Case Comment:

Tercon Contractors Ltd.

v. British Columbia:

the Final Nail in the Coffin

of the Doctrine of Fundamental Breach?

The Supreme Court of Canada released its reasons in the much anticipated decision in Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia (Transportation and Highways), 2010 SCC 4 on February 12, 2010.  In a five/four decision, the majority found in favour of Tercon, allowing the appeal.  The Court agreed on the appropriate framework of the analysis as to the enforceability of the exclusion clause in issue, but were divided on the applicability of the relevant exclusion clause to the facts at hand.

The facts of Tercon arose out of a tendering contract between Tercon Constructors Ltd. ("Tercon") and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (the "Province') which issued the tender call.  The key issue in the case was the interpretation of provisions in the contract relating to the eligibility to bid and a damages waiver which excluded compensation resulting from participation in the tendering process.

In 2000, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for the Province issued a request for expressions of interest ("RFEI") for designing and building a highway in northwestern British Columbia.  Six teams made submissions, including Tercon and Brentwood Enterprises Ltd. ("Brentwood").  Later in 2000, the Province informed the six proponents that it now intended to design the highway itself and would issue a request for proposal ("RFP"), which RFP in fact was issued on January 15, 2001.  Under the terms of the RFP, only the six original proponents were eligible to submit a proposal.  The RFP also included an exclusion clause which stated as follows:

2.10… Except as expressly and specifically permitted in these Instructions to Proponents, no Proponent shall have any claim for compensation of any kind whatsoever, as a result of participating in this RFP, and by submitting a Proposal each Proponent shall be deemed to have agreed that it has no claim. [Emphasis added] (para. 61)

Subsequent to the issuance of the RFP, Brentwood teamed up with Emil Anderson Construction Co. ("EAC") because it was unable to submit a competitive bid on its own.  EAC was not one of the six qualified bidders.  Together, Brentwood and EAC submitted a bid in Brentwood's name.  Brentwood and Tercon were the two short-listed proponents.  The Province ultimately selected Brentwood as the preferred proponent.

Tercon brought an action seeking damages, alleging that the Province had considered and accepted an ineligible bid and that, but for that breach, Tercon would have been awarded the contract.  The trial judge agreed and awarded approximately $3.5 million in damages and pre-judgment interest to Tercon.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s decision.  Tercon sought and obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. 

... Cliquer ici pour l'article complet



Droits d'auteur 1999-2009 © Le Collège Canadien des Avocats en droit de la construction inc.