Latest news with #NewBrunswickCourtofAppeal
CBC
25-04-2025
- Business
- CBC
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.
CBC
07-02-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Province's approach in child-custody case goes against law's intent, court says
Social Sharing New Brunswick's Child and Youth Well-Being Act has been in effect for a year, and there are contradictory accounts of how it has changed the government's approach to child-custody cases. According to the Department of Social Development, there are improvements, but a recent New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision suggests officials don't always act in the spirit of the legislation's "child-centric" philosophy. "Anecdotally we're seeing the evidence its getting better," the deputy minister, Jim Mehan, told the legislature's public accounts committee last week, though he acknowledged there isn't enough data to say for sure. In the court of appeal case, Justice Kathleen Quigg wrote that the province's approach in the case of a 12-year-old boy "is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the act." Quigg said in a 25-page decision that the province's logic would lead to an "absurd" phenomenon of everyone but a child's parent having the right to ask the court for permission to have contact with a child. "An interpretation that accepts arbitrary distinctions or promotes inefficiencies within the justice system cannot be adopted, because the legislature does not intend absurd consequences," she wrote. This ignores the child's rights rather than focusing on them. - Justice Kathleen Quigg The Child and Youth Well-Being Act was adopted by the legislature in 2022 but only took legal effect in January 2024. It was designed to improve how the province handles child protection cases — situations where the government must step in and remove a child from their parents' custody for the child's own safety or well-being. The new legislation added, for example, the ability for the province to place a child in the care of relatives, to preserve family connections. "The old act was more supporting the parents. The new act is more focused on the child," Mehan said at the committee session. But in the case of the boy identified only as "B.," the three appeal court justices concluded the province wasn't living up to that. WATCH | 'Absurd': Top court criticizes New Brunswick in guardianship case: Province didn't live up to intent of new child protection act, court says 4 hours ago Duration 1:55 The ruling said that B.'s father had "struggled to take care of him" and the province took over guardianship of the boy and placed him a group home. There was still "a loving relationship," however, so the judge in the custody hearing gave B.'s father, C.G., the right to have regular contact with his son. The province appealed that decision, arguing only the minister has that authority under a section of the act that says the minister has "the sole discretion" to grant a request from a parent for contact. The appeal court upheld the granting of contact to the father, concluding that the wording of the law doesn't explicitly preclude it. "To prevent courts from ordering contact, then wait for the minister to decide whether to grant contact, and possibly have to further wait for judicial review of the Minister's decision if the minister denies the former parent contact" was inconsistent with the act, she wrote. Those delays "could, in some cases, work against the concept of the best interests of the child and these integral connections" with family members, she continued. A spokesperson for the department would not comment on the ruling or say whether it will try to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. "The department is still reviewing the decision," Kate Wright said in an email. "The department will respond in due time if necessary." Green Party MLA Megan Mitton said Quigg's ruling raised an important issue. "The act, I guess, isn't making a difference in every case that it should, because prioritizing kinship — prioritizing the well-being of child and youth in the system which is meant to serve them — was the whole idea, so if that's not happening, it's frustrating," she said. The ruling pointed out that B. himself wanted to maintain contact with his father. Mehan said last week at the committee session that a key feature of the new act was "the focus on the rights of the child … and ensuring the child is heard in that decision-making." Quigg's ruling pointed out that nothing in the new act lets a child request contact, leaving it up to the parent, who may lack the resources or capacity to pursue it.
