Elan Construction Ltd. v. South Fish Creek Recreational Association, 2015 ABQB 140

• Judge: Tilleman, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 12, 2015
• Citations: 2015 ABQB 140;(2015), 613 A.R. 135 (QB)

Elan Constr. v. South Fish Creek (2015), 613 A.R. 135 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. MR.155

Elan Construction Ltd. (plaintiff) v. South Fish Creek Recreational Association (defendant)

(1001 13790; 2015 ABQB 140)

Indexed As: Elan Construction Ltd. v. South Fish Creek Recreational Association

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Tilleman, J.

February 27, 2015.

Summary:

The South Fish Creek Recreational Association (SFCRA) wished to expand its recreational facilities by adding two more ice surfaces to its existing complex. SFCRA solicited tenders for the general contract for the project. Elan Construction Ltd. submitted a bid in response to the SFCRA's tender. Therefore a Contract A as described in Ron Engineering (SCC) was formed. The bids were evaluated using an evaluation matrix that provided for a maximum of 100 points based on four criteria. Eleven bids were received and the contract was awarded to Chandos Construction. Elan commenced an action against SFCRA, alleging a breach of Contract A. A dispute arose over the admissibility of a certain document (i.e., a letter from one of SFCRA's consultants). Elan wanted to use the letter to question SFCRA's witnesses about their reasoning and about the process for evaluating the bids. The letter was written to SFCRA by an engineer in which he expressed an opinion on the state of Canadian law concerning bidding and tendering and an opinion as to which of the bidders SFCRA was legally obliged to award the construction contract. SFCRA resisted admission. A voir dire was held.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the letter was relevant and could be used in questioning the witnesses of the defendant (i.e., SFCRA).

Evidence - Topic 7002

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Acceptance, rejection and weight to be given to expert opinion - See paragraphs 16 to 27.

Evidence - Topic 7154

Opinion evidence - Prohibited opinions - Re basic or ultimate issue to be decided - See paragraphs 21 to 27.

Counsel:

Phillip Carson (Miller Thompson), for the defendant, South Fish Creek Recreational Association;

Todd Kathol (Field Law), for the plaintiff, Elan Construction Ltd.

This voir dire was held in Calgary, Alberta, on January 12, 2015, before Tilleman, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, who delivered the following decision on February 27, 2015.