Articles

The awarding of public contracts in the construction industry, the deployment of troops in Somalia, espionage at the outset of the Cold War : commissions of inquiry have punctuated and shaped the recent history of our country. But in getting to the heart of important social issues, they often adversely affect the private interests of those involved in them.

In its decision in Groupe-conseil Génipur inc. v. 9160-0569 Québec inc., the Superior Court of Québec dealt with the claim of the latter against engineering firm Groupe-conseil Génipur inc. for a cost overrun it was forced to incur for the transportation of excess excavated material from a construction site.

This past April, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in Theratechnologies inc. v. 121851 Canada inc., which involved the burden of proof applicable to investors seeking authorization to bring a class action for damages pursuant to section 225.4 of the Quebec’s Securities Act.

The rights of a secured creditor holding security in a debtor’s inventory may be limited by certain third-party rights.

The Quebec Court of Appeal’s decision in SNC-Lavalin inc. v. Société québécoise des infrastructures (Société immobilière du Québec) is significant for construction law in more than one respect.

Structural problems were noted in a building in the city of Trois-Rivières belonging to the Corporation d’hébergement du Québec (the “CHQ”) (now known as the Société québécoise des infrastructures) that required remedial work consisting of driving new piles and raising the building. The CHQ issued a call for tenders and eventually awarded the fixed-price construction contract to general contractor Aecon. The latter entered into a subcontract with Consortium Bisson-Prétech (“CBP”) for driving the piles and raising the building. The owner had retained the services of engineering firm CIMA+ to draw up the plans and specifications that were included in the call-for-tender documents.