Partner Tim Goepel and associate Matt Stainsby were successful in having a multi-million dollar claim against their client, L&M Engineering Limited, dismissed in its entirety in a decision of Integrated Contractors Ltd. v. Leduc Development Ltd., 2016 BCSC 1984.
During the 23 day trial, the defendant, and plaintiff by counterclaim, Leduc Development Ltd. (“Leduc”) had commenced a counterclaim against L&M alleging that it had caused or contributed to delays to the completion of a residential subdivision in Fort Nelson (the “Subdivision”). L&M had been hired by Leduc to perform engineering services to Leduc with respect to the completion of the Subdivision in 2005. Due to a number of factors, the Subdivision ultimately did not succeed and the property was sold through foreclosure proceedings.
Leduc alleged that L&M became the project manager with respect to the construction of the Subdivision in addition to the engineering services that L&M was originally contracted to perform. Leduc argued that L&M breached its common law and contractual duties as project manager to ensure timely construction and cost effectiveness of the Subdivision. As a result of these alleged breaches, Leduc claimed that it suffered loss and damage, including lost profits on the development of the Subdivision as well as loss of its original investment, losses that it calculated in the millions of dollars.
L&M successfully argued that it did not take on the role of project manager and was therefore not responsible, contractually or under common law, for the delays in construction caused by others retained by Leduc. Additionally, L&M successfully argued that it completed its engineering services in accordance with its contractual and common law duties and was not the cause of any of the delays alleged by Leduc.
If you need help with your case, call one of our litigation lawyers.
This article is intended to be an overview of the law and is for informational purposes only. Readers are cautioned that this article does not constitute legal or professional advice and should not be relied on as such. Rather, readers should obtain specific legal advice in relation to the issues they are facing.