Court of Appeal

Decision Information

Decision Content

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL

Citation: Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Force Construction Ltd.,

2009 NSCA 96

 

Date: 20090917

Docket: CA 304815

Registry: Halifax

 

 

Between:

Attorney General of Nova Scotia representing

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia

 

Appellant

v.

 

Force Construction Limited

Respondent

 

 

Judges:                           Bateman, Hamilton and Fichaud, JJ.A.

 

Appeal Heard:                September17, 2009, in Halifax, Nova Scotia

 

Written Judgment:         September 18, 2009        

 

Held:                    Appeal dismissed per oral reasons for judgment of Bateman, J.A.; Hamilton and Fichaud, JJ.A. concurring.

 

 

Counsel:                         Michael T. Pugsley, for the appellant

David A. Graves, Q.C. and Kevin D. Gibson, for the respondent


Reasons for judgment:

 

[1]              The Province was found liable for breach of contract in a tendering situation and required to pay damages.  The reasons for judgment of Justice Glen G. McDougall of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia are reported at 2008 NSSC 327.  Those reasons provide full detail of the circumstances and trial positions of both parties.

 

[2]              The judge determined that the Province had failed in its obligation to treat all bidder’s equally by requiring the lowest compliant bidder to provide additional assurances after submitting its bid (see reasons at para. 43).  We are not persuaded that in so concluding he erred.

 

[3]               Nor are we satisfied that he erred in his calculation of damages, having found that but for the Province’s breach, the respondent would have been awarded the contract.

 

[4]              The appeal is dismissed with costs payable of $12,400.00 representing 40% of those at trial.  In addition the respondent shall have its disbursements on the appeal as taxed or agreed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bateman, J.A.

 

Concurred in:

 

Hamilton, J.A.

 

Fichaud, J.A.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.