Yukon (Department of Highways and Public Works) v. Sidhu (P.S.) Trucking Ltd. et al., 2015 YKCA 5

JudgeChiasson, Schuler and Goepel, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Yukon Territory)
Case DateNovember 18, 2014
JurisdictionYukon
Citations2015 YKCA 5;(2015), 368 B.C.A.C. 26 (YukCA)

Yukon v. Sidhu Trucking Ltd. (2015), 368 B.C.A.C. 26 (YukCA);

    633 W.A.C. 26

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. FE.010

Government of Yukon (Department of Highways and Public Works) (respondent/petitioner) v. P.S. Sidhu Trucking Ltd. (appellant/respondent) and CMF Construction Ltd. (respondent/respondent)

(13-YU730; 2015 YKCA 5)

Indexed As: Yukon (Department of Highways and Public Works) v. Sidhu (P.S.) Trucking Ltd. et al.

Yukon Court of Appeal

Chiasson, Schuler and Goepel, JJ.A.

February 6, 2015.

Summary:

Yukon issued tenders for the construction of the replacement of a bridge. The tender closing date and time were 4:00 p.m., local time, August 15, 2013. Sidhu (P.S.) Trucking Ltd.'s bid was submitted at 4:00 p.m., local time, August 15, 2013. It was the low bid. CMF Construction Ltd. questioned the timeliness of Sidhu's bid. Yukon applied for a declaration confirming the precise closing time for the tenders and that the bid submitted by Sidhu was not submitted in time.

The Yukon Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2013] Yukon Cases Uned. 105, allowed the application. Yukon awarded the contract to CMF and the work was commenced. Sidhu appealed. Sidhu also sued Yukon for breach of contract or negligent misrepresentation.

The Yukon Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot. The legal opinion requested in Yukon's petition should not have been given, but all parties sought it. Sidhu now sought damages against Yukon for acting in accordance with that opinion. On this appeal, it sought to establish the legal basis for doing so. That issue was prima facie moot. The court "would not lend the assistance of the Court to [Sidhu's] attempt to cast off the results of legal proceedings it supported."

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - See paragraphs 21 to 38.

Practice - Topic 5653.1

Judgments and orders - Declaratory judgments - When available - Requirement of lis between parties - See paragraphs 21 to 38.

Practice - Topic 8858

Appeals - Bar or loss of right of appeal - Moot issues - See paragraphs 21 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

Ron Engineering & Construction (Eastern) Ltd. v. Ontario and Water Resources Commission, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 111; 35 N.R. 40, refd to. [para. 14].

Creston Moly Corp. v. Sattva Capital Corp. (2014), 461 N.R. 335; 358 B.C.A.C. 1; 614 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 19].

Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in v. Canada et al. (2004), 193 B.C.A.C. 87; 316 W.A.C. 87; 2004 YKCA 2, refd to. [para. 23].

Horton Bay Holdings Ltd. v. Wilks (1991), 8 B.C.A.C. 68; 17 W.A.C. 68; 3 C.P.C.(3d) 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Garcia v. Drinnan, [2013] B.C.A.C. Uned. 10; 2013 BCCA 53, refd to. [para. 27].

Bygo Inc. v. MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. et al., [2001] B.C.A.C. Uned. 49; 2001 BCCA 327, refd to. [para. 27].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 28].

Counsel:

E. Olszewski, Q.C., for the appellant;

P. Lawson, for the respondent, Government of Yukon;

M. Preston, for the respondent, CMF Construction Ltd.

This appeal was heard at Whitehorse, Yukon, on November 18, 2014, by Chiasson, Schuler and Goepel, JJ.A., of the Yukon Court of Appeal. On February 6, 2015, Chiasson, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
2 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT