Aecon Buildings v. Stephenson Engineering Ltd.

Aecon Buildings v. Stephenson Engineering Ltd.

The motion to adduce fresh evidence was denied because the materials sought to be added did not assist the leave panel in determining whether the appeal raised an issue of public importance; the legal issues were straightforward and the articles were routine notices to the profession reiterating established disclosure rules for Mary Carter-type agreements.

Citation
2011 SCC 33
Parties
Applicant/applicant on Motion: Aecon Buildings, A Division of Aecon Construction Group Inc.; Respondent/respondent on Motion: Stephenson Engineering Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal (motion to Adduce Fresh Evidence) / Leave Application (motion)
Outcome
Motion to adduce fresh evidence denied
Legal Topics
Mary Carter Type Agreement, Disclosure Obligations, Abuse of Process, Fresh Evidence, Public Importance Under S.43
Source Language
English
Courts Civil Procedure Appeal Mary Carter Type Agreement Disclosure Obligations Abuse of Process Fresh Evidence Public Importance Under S.43

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aecon Buildings, A Division of Aecon Construction Group Inc.

Applicant/applicant on Motion

Stephenson Engineering Limited

Respondent/respondent on Motion

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal (motion to Adduce Fresh Evidence) / Leave Application (motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 11 publications annexed to an affidavit should be admitted as fresh evidence on a leave to appeal application
  2. 2 Whether Mary Carter-type (partial settlement) agreements must be immediately disclosed to the court and parties
  3. 3 Whether failure to disclose such agreements can warrant a stay for abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to adduce fresh evidence was denied because the materials sought to be added did not assist the leave panel in determining whether the appeal raised an issue of public importance; the legal issues were straightforward and the articles were routine notices to the profession reiterating established disclosure rules for Mary Carter-type agreements.

Court Disposition

Motion to adduce fresh evidence denied

Orders

  • Application to adduce fresh evidence denied without costs
  • Motion denied