Julmac asks judge for injunction to allow it to return to work on N.B. bridges

An Ontario construction company argued in court Thursday that it should be allowed to return to work on three bridge projects the New Brunswick government removed it from on Feb. 10.

Julmac Contracting Ltd. is seeking an interlocutory injunction, which is a provisional measure that would allow its employees to return to work on the Anderson and Centennial bridges in Miramichi, as well as the Mactaquac Dam bridge near Fredericton.

In a brief filed by its lawyers, Julmac says the injunction would prevent "irreparable harm" to the company and its employees while it pursues a legal challenge to the province's decision to remove it.

"Julmac would go back to the job sites. The contracts, which are still in force, would continue to operate as they did before," said Julmac lawyer David Outerbridge, addressing Justice Richard Petrie at the Burton courthouse.

At least 25 people — aside from the parties' legal teams — showed up to the small rural courthouse, many of them arriving in pickup trucks and utility vans.

The attendees might have hoped for a ruling Thursday that would determine whether Julmac's staff could return to work, however, Petrie wasn't prepared to do that.

At the outset, Petrie said the record for the motion contained about 2,000 pages of evidence.

With that came the need to sort through which of those should be admissible before he could weigh the merits of the injunction request.

"All of this lands on my lap in the midst of a significant scheduling challenge," he said.

Province argues no grounds for injunction

Petrie said instead of dealing with the evidence Thursday, he suggested the two parties address a more foundational issue raised by the province.

In its response to Julmac's motion, the provincial government argued that an injunction isn't even an option that Julmac could pursue in this case.

Lawyer Mark Heighton said the province did not act in a manner that was outside of its statutory authority when it decided to remove Julmac from the projects.

Therefore, an injunction to effectively rescind the province's default notices against Julmac wouldn't be allowed under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

"There are a number of leaps you are going to need to make in order to conclude that an injunctive relief is even available," Heighton said.

"You don't have New Brunswick case law that guides you on this and I'd suggest what Julmac is asking you to do is to read into case law that doesn't directly apply to this situation."

New tenders being issued for work

After hearing arguments, Petrie announced he would reserve his decision on whether an injunction is an option in this case.

That prompted Outerbridge to ask for another injunction to prevent the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure from awarding contracts for the projects to other companies.

"I think it's completely unfair of Julmac to make this suggestion," said Frederick McElman, a lawyer for the province, in response.

McElman referred to evidence on the record indicating that tenders for two of the projects would be reissued this month, with the contracts expected to be awarded in early April.

Petrie agreed that Outerbridge's last-minute request was inappropriate and assured both parties he'd have a ruling before then.

"The best I can do is give my decision as soon as I can," he said.