Valard Construction Ltd. v. Bird Construction

JudgeRowbotham, Wakeling and Schutz, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Alberta)
Citation2016 ABCA 249
Date29 August 2016

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
22 practice notes
  • Capital Steel Inc v Chandos Construction Ltd, 2019 ABCA 32
    • Canada
    • Alberta Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • January 29, 2019
    ...would give the text an implausible meaning. A court may never do this”); Valard Construction Ltd. v. Bird Construction Co., 2016 ABCA 249, ¶184; 57 C.L.R. 4th 171, 236 per Wakeling, J.A. (“This interpretation was not one that the words may bear. It is implausible”); Lawson Store Service Co.......
  • Wall v. Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses et al., 2016 ABCA 255
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • September 8, 2016
    ...Disputes – Some Constitutional Considerations", 74 Yale L.J. 1113 (1965). 67. See Valard Construction Ltd. v. Bird Construction Co. , 2016 ABCA 249, ¶ 159 ("A court tasked with the resolution of an issue that it has not resolved before must turn to first principles for guidance. This has al......
  • Canada v. Canada North Group Inc., 2019 ABCA 314
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • August 29, 2019
    ...meaning would give the text an implausible meaning. A court may never do this”) & Valard Construction Ltd. v. Bird Construction Co., 2016 ABCA 249, ¶ 184; 57 C.L.R. 4th 171, 236 per Wakeling, J.A. in dissent (“The text of the bond does not support the interpretation the trial judge gave......
  • Composite Technologies Inc. v. Shawcor Ltd.,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • June 23, 2017
    ...meaning would give the text an implausible meaning. A court may never do this”); Valard Construction Ltd. v. Bird Construction Co., 2016 ABCA 249, ¶ 184; 57 C.L.R. 4th 171, 236 per Wakeling , J.A. in dissent (“This interpretation was not one that the words may bear. It is implausible”) &......
  • Get Started for Free
11 cases
  • Capital Steel Inc v Chandos Construction Ltd, 2019 ABCA 32
    • Canada
    • Alberta Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • January 29, 2019
    ...would give the text an implausible meaning. A court may never do this”); Valard Construction Ltd. v. Bird Construction Co., 2016 ABCA 249, ¶184; 57 C.L.R. 4th 171, 236 per Wakeling, J.A. (“This interpretation was not one that the words may bear. It is implausible”); Lawson Store Service Co.......
  • Wall v. Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses et al., 2016 ABCA 255
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • September 8, 2016
    ...Disputes – Some Constitutional Considerations", 74 Yale L.J. 1113 (1965). 67. See Valard Construction Ltd. v. Bird Construction Co. , 2016 ABCA 249, ¶ 159 ("A court tasked with the resolution of an issue that it has not resolved before must turn to first principles for guidance. This has al......
  • Canada v. Canada North Group Inc., 2019 ABCA 314
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • August 29, 2019
    ...meaning would give the text an implausible meaning. A court may never do this”) & Valard Construction Ltd. v. Bird Construction Co., 2016 ABCA 249, ¶ 184; 57 C.L.R. 4th 171, 236 per Wakeling, J.A. in dissent (“The text of the bond does not support the interpretation the trial judge gave......
  • Composite Technologies Inc. v. Shawcor Ltd.,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • June 23, 2017
    ...meaning would give the text an implausible meaning. A court may never do this”); Valard Construction Ltd. v. Bird Construction Co., 2016 ABCA 249, ¶ 184; 57 C.L.R. 4th 171, 236 per Wakeling , J.A. in dissent (“This interpretation was not one that the words may bear. It is implausible”) &......
  • Get Started for Free
9 firm's commentaries
  • Unpaid Subcontractors Beware
    • Canada
    • JD Supra Canada
    • September 15, 2016
    ...for subcontractors and suppliers and by reducing the risk of builders’ liens. In Valard Construction Ltd v Bird Construction Company, 2016 ABCA 249 [Valard], a majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal confirmed that, unless asked, an owner/trustee under an L&M Bond has no duty to disclose it......
  • Defence & Indemnity - December 2016: V. SURETY AND BOND ISSUES
    • Canada
    • JD Supra Canada
    • January 30, 2017
    ...such a bond to potential bond claimants until specifically asked about its existence. Valard Construction Ltd. v Bird Construction Co., 2016 ABCA 249 per Schutz,J.A. (Rowbotham concurring); Wakeling, J.A. in I. FACTS AND ISSUES Bird Construction Company ("Bird"), as general contractor, ente......
  • Unpaid Subcontractors Beware
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • September 19, 2016
    ...for subcontractors and suppliers and by reducing the risk of builders' liens. In Valard Construction Ltd v Bird Construction Company, 2016 ABCA 249 [Valard], a majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal confirmed that, unless asked, an owner/trustee under an L&M Bond has no duty to disclos......
  • Defence + Indemnity: February 2018 - VI. SURETY AND BOND ISSUES
    • Canada
    • JD Supra Canada
    • March 7, 2018
    .... Valard appealed and the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the Queen’s Bench decision: Valard Construction Ltd. v Bird Construction Co., 2016 ABCA 249. Valard then took its argument to the Supreme Court of II. HELD: Bird, as trustee, owed a fiduciary duty under the L&M Bond to Valard. In thes......
  • Get Started for Free