Ontario contractor dealt yet another blow in legal battle with N.B. government
An Ontario construction company has been dealt another legal blow in its fight against the New Brunswick government over three major bridge projects.
New Brunswick Court of Appeal Justice Kathleen Quigg dismissed Julmac Contracting Ltd.'s motion seeking to appeal a lower court's choice not to grant an injunction that would have allowed its employees to return to work on the three projects.
Speaking to lawyers for the two parties in court Friday, Quigg said she did not think Julmac had satisfied criteria needed for an appeal to go forward.
She said she also found no reason to doubt the correctness of Court of King's Bench Justice Richard Petrie's earlier decision denying the injunction request.
"Overall, the moving party has not convinced me that the proposed appeal would have had a reasonable possibility of success," Quigg said.
Quigg dismissed Julmac's motion and ordered the company to pay $1,500 in costs to the province.
The decision marks the latest chapter in a feud between the New Brunswick government and Julmac, which had been contracted by the province to do work on the Anderson and Centennial bridges in Miramichi, as well as the Mactaquac Dam bridge near Fredericton.
However, the relationship between the two parties soured in 2023, with Julmac filing a free trade complaint and civil lawsuit alleging the province applied stricter standards to its work than to New Brunswick companies.
The allegations haven't been tested in court, but on Feb. 20, the province abruptly ordered Julmac to remove itself from the three projects.
Julmac filed a motion in the Court of King's Bench asking for an interlocutory injunction that would effectively allow its employees to resume work, arguing the injunction would prevent "irreparable harm" from coming to it and its 120 employees while it pursued legal action against the province for removing it from the projects.
On March 28, Petrie denied the injunction request, writing that the court did not have jurisdiction to grant one under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.
Lawyers make arguments
Earlier Friday, lawyers for Julmac and the province argued for and against allowing an appeal of Petrie's decision.
Julmac lawyer Shalom Cumbo-Steinmetz argued there was case law where an injunction had been granted under similar circumstances.
"There's good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision [by Petrie]," Cumbo-Steinmetz said. "Appellate intervention is needed."
Mark Heighton, lawyer for the province, disagreed, arguing the cases cited were different in circumstances from the facts in this case.
Heighton added that an injunction in this case would effectively act as "final relief" in favour of Julmac. He urged Quigg to dismiss the motion.
New contracts awarded
Part of Julmac's request for an injunction also sought to prevent the province from awarding contracts for the three projects to other companies.
On Friday, Frederick McElman, a lawyer for the province, revealed that contracts had been awarded this week to complete the work on the Mactaquac Dam bridge, as well as the Anderson Bridge, though he did not say which companies received them.
CBC News has asked the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure for information about the three projects.
Under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, Julmac had to give the province 60 days' notice before filing a lawsuit for being removed from the projects.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
30-05-2025
- Winnipeg Free Press
Premier's chief-of-staff takes stand in lawsuit
The premier's chief of staff was questioned in a Winnipeg court Thursday about his role in preparing a news release that an independent candidate in the 2022 byelection claims was defamatory. Mark Rosner — along with the NDP and its candidate Trudy Schroeder — is being sued for defamation in civil court by Patrick Allard, an outspoken opponent of COVID-19 public health restrictions. Allard was an independent in the March 2022 Fort Whyte byelection that was won by Obby Khan, who was recently selected as Tory party leader. In the news release, the NDP described Allard as having used 'racist rhetoric.' Allard filed the lawsuit in December 2022. Rosner, who was NDP leader Wab Kinew's chief of staff and was on the party's byelection committee, was cross-examined by Allard's lawyer, Scott Cannon, on Thursday. Rosner told Court of King's Bench Justice Shane Perlmutter he stands by that description and believes it to be a fact. 'The choice of words was deliberate,' said Rosner, when asked by Cannon whether the intent was to infer Allard was a racist. The news release was issued on behalf of Schroeder after Liberal candidate Willard Reaves called for an all-candidates forum that would include Allard. A Free Press request for comment on Reaves' proposal prompted the release. The release quoted a campaign spokesperson as saying the proposal would give 'Allard a platform to spout his anti-vaccination and racist rhetoric' and the party declined to participate. Rosner had written that section of the release. Rosner told court he was aware of Allard's opposition to COVID-19 restrictions and his commentary on the matter at the time, including the comparison of reporting violators of health orders with people who reported 'attic-hiding Jews' in Nazi Germany. Rosner said he believes that comment trivialized the Holocaust and contributed to a diminished appreciation of the wrongs and the truth of the genocide in which six million Jews were killed by Nazis. 'That rhetoric, that argument, is racist in character,' said Rosner. 'The government did not murder people in Manitoba.' Earlier this week, Abram Silver, lawyer for the NDP, questioned Allard about social media posts in which he compared the two, which Silver alleged were clearly racist. 'Make sure to turn in any attic-hiding Jews, while you're at it,' Allard wrote in a reply posted on Facebook in late 2021 or early 2022 and later uploaded to Reddit. In court, Allard had said the comments were taken out of context and specifically compared the Nazi policy that encouraged citizens to turn in their Jewish neighbours to that of the Canadian government encouraging citizens to report public health violators during the pandemic. Allard said in court he does not think those comments trivialize the Holocaust, but elevate concern about official overreach. On Thursday, Cannon argued Rosner was not aware of those specific comments prior to when he helped write the news release. Rosner denied that. He suggested to Rosner he was reckless when he used the term 'racist rhetoric' — which the political staffer denied. Cannon has argued the news release was a political strategy motivated by malice to damage Allard's reputation and improve the NDP's standing in the byelection. In August 2022, Allard was fined $34,000 for repeatedly breaching public health orders in 2020 and 2021. He was a fixture at anti-lockdown rallies in the province. Ousted NDP MLA Mark Wasyliw briefly sat in the public gallery at Rosner's cross-examination Thursday morning. Wasyliw, a defence lawyer, sits as an independent in Fort Garry after being booted from the NDP caucus last fall. Erik PinderaReporter Erik Pindera is a reporter for the Free Press, mostly focusing on crime and justice. The born-and-bred Winnipegger attended Red River College Polytechnic, wrote for the community newspaper in Kenora, Ont. and reported on television and radio in Winnipeg before joining the Free Press in 2020. Read more about Erik. Every piece of reporting Erik produces is reviewed by an editing team before it is posted online or published in print — part of the Free Press's tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press's history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates. Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber. Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
Cision Canada
28-05-2025
- Cision Canada
Canadian Medical Association files legal challenge to protect the rights of young patients and families to make medical decisions
CALGARY, AB , May 28, 2025 /CNW/ - Today, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), along with three Alberta doctors, will file a constitutional challenge to Alberta's Bill 26, to protect the relationship between patients, their families and doctors when it comes to making treatment decisions. Bill 26 directs physicians on how to deliver gender-affirming care to people under 18, down to which medications they can use, when and how. This is an historic and unprecedented government intrusion into the physician-patient relationship and requires doctors to follow the law rather than clinical guidelines, the needs of patients and their own conscience. "Medicine is a calling. Doctors pursue it because they are compelled to care for and promote the well-being of patients," says CMA President Dr. Joss Reimer . "When a government bans specific treatments, it interferes with a doctor's ability to empower patients to choose the best care possible." Doctors are governed by the highest standards of ethics and professionalism. Under Bill 26, they are now powerless to provide independent expertise, clinical guidance and treatment options when it comes to gender-affirming care. "This legislation has put me and many of my colleagues in a state of moral crisis," says Dr. Jake Donaldson , a Calgary -based family physician providing gender-affirming care to about 40 adolescents. "These patients are a vulnerable group that already face significant and disproportionate discrimination, violence and mental health challenges," he adds. "Bill 26 commands physicians to stand on the sidelines and watch them suffer." This legal challenge is not just about Alberta and gender-affirming care. Health decisions are complex and unique to everyone. They are deeply personal and must be made by patients and their families, in partnership with their health provider – not by politicians. The CMA felt it had no choice but to step in before this kind of political interference expands to other national health issues, such as vaccination, reproductive health, medical assistance in dying, or even cancers or surgeries resulting from lifestyle choices. At a time when the Canadian health system is under significant pressure, the Alberta government should be spending its time, energy and resources on the 650,000 people in the province without a family doctor, not on the few hundred vulnerable youth seeking medical assistance. This is a misplaced priority that doesn't reflect the health care needs of people living in Alberta , and more broadly, in Canada . Background The CMA has filed an application with the Court of King's Bench for the judicial review of Alberta Bill 26 the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2024 and its proposed changes to the Health Professions Act R.S.A 2000 with the Court of King's Bench. The CMA asserts that Bill 26 and its proposed changes violate the freedom of conscience of physicians in Alberta contrary to section 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Protecting freedom of conscience in medical practice ensures doctors can provide medical guidance and treatments in the best interest of patients, without facing disciplinary action. In Canada , physicians are governed by the CMA Code of Ethics and Professionalism (the "Code"). First established in 1868, the Code articulates the ethical and professional responsibilities of the medical profession. It is founded on and affirms the core values, commitments and principles that physicians must uphold as members of their profession. About the CMA The Canadian Medical Association leads a national movement with physicians who believe in a better future of health. Our ambition is a sustainable, accessible health system where patients are partners, a culture of medicine that elevates equity, diversity and wellbeing, and supportive communities where everyone has the chance to be healthy. We drive change through advocacy, giving and knowledge sharing – guided by values of collaboration and inclusion. SOURCE Canadian Medical Association To schedule an interview or for further information, please contact: CMA Media Relations: [email protected]; Elena Gabrysz, 514-839-7296; Eric Lewis, 506-566-1671
Calgary Herald
27-05-2025
- Calgary Herald
Alberta Court of Appeal dismisses Grassy Mountain appeals made by Northback and Piikani, Stoney Nakoda Nations
Article content The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed Tuesday appeals made by an Australia-based mining company and two First Nations for a new hearing over a proposed coal mine along the Eastern Slopes of the Rocky Mountains. Article content Article content In 2021, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), acting as part of a joint provincial-federal review panel, had turned down provincial approval for the Grassy Mountain project proposed by Benga Mining, now Northback Holdings. The federal government also rejected the proposal that year. Article content Article content Benga, Piikani Nation and Stoney Nakoda Nation challenged the AER decision, appealing both to the Alberta Court of Appeal as well as filing applications for a judicial review in the Court of King's Bench. Article content Article content Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was denied, and Justice Allison Kuntz turned down three separate judicial review applications made to the Court of King's Bench in December 2023. Article content Following an Oct. 8 hearing, Justices Jane Fagnan and Karan M. Shaner upheld the dismissal of the judicial review applications, with Chief Justice Ritu Khullar dissenting. Article content In their majority decision, the justices noted that Kuntz had pointed out that none of the judicial review applications challenged the constitutional validity of section 56 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (REDA), which prohibits judicial review. Article content Kuntz had dismissed the judicial review applications because they were barred by the REDA section. Article content Article content In upholding that 2023 ruling, the justices wrote that Northback and the two First Nations were essentially arguing that the section is 'ineffective for constitutional reasons.' Article content Article content 'The appellants did not provide timely notice of the constitutional issue raised before the chambers justice,' the justices concluded in Tuesday's ruling. Article content 'In the circumstances, the chambers justice did not err in determining that s 56 barred judicial review by the Court of King's Bench in this case.' Article content
