Counsel on Precedent-setting Cases Involving the Construction Industry

• Chandos Construction Ltd. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, Represented by the Minister of Alberta Infrastructure (2006), 50 C.L.R. (3d) which is an Alberta Court of Appeal decision which sets out the restrictions imposed upon a tender-calling authority reviewing and awarding tenders.
• M.J.B. Enterprises Ltd. v. Defence Construction Canada (1999), 44 C.L.R. (2d) 163 (Supreme Court of Canada) where Mr. Goodfellow was counsel for the successful appellant, which case laid down the rights and obligations of those calling for tenders in commerce and construction.
• Wind Power Inc. v. Saskatchewan Power Corporation (2002), 15 C.L.R. (3d) 291 (Sask.C.A.). This case dealt with the obligation of a crown agency in the tendering process. An Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is pending.
• Red Deer College v. W.W. Construction Lethbridge Ltd. (1989), 65 Alta.L.R.(2d) 1 (Alberta Court of Appeal, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused) where Mr. Goodfellow was the successful counsel in determining the obligations of the owner and the contractor regarding the retention of the holdback and the right to pay funds on the face of a lien, notwithstanding the provisions of express contract documents.
• Western Industrial Contractors Ltd. v. Sarcee Developments Ltd., Sarcee Band of Indians and Government of Canada (1979), 15 A.R. 309 (Alberta Court of Appeal) where Mr. Goodfellow was successful counsel in the precedent-setting case in Canada holding that a contractor is entitled to file a builders’ lien regarding estates or interests involving Indian lands when leasehold interests are involved.
• Palm Dairies Ltd. v. Sarcee Developments Ltd. et al, [1979] 1 F.C. 531 (Federal Court of Canada) which case resulted in the Registrar of the Land Registration District in Alberta accepting builders’ liens as encumbrances against leasehold interests involving Indian lands.
• N.V. Reykdal & Associates Ltd. v. K.N. Fung Canada Ltd. (1997), 207 A.R. 286 (Alberta Court of Appeal, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused) which case held that in order for the holder of a fee simple to be classified as a “owner” under the Builders’ Lien Act, there must be active participation by the holder of the fee simple in its dealings with the contractor and the construction process.
• E.C. & M. Electric Ltd. v. Medicine Hat General and Auxiliary Hospital and Nursing Home District No. 69 (1987), 50 Alta. L.R. (2d) 48 where Mr. Goodfellow acted for PCL Construction Limited and the Court held that a compensated surety issuing a labour and material payment bond is subrograted to the rights of a builders’ lien claimant upon payment of the claim, notwithstanding that the labour and material payment bond does not contain an express subrogation right.
• LT Interior & Drywall Ltd. v. Sota Centre Inc. (2003), 25 C.L.R.(3d) 259 (Alta.Q.B.) determining when a non-privity lien claimant may or may not have builders’ lien rights against the holder of the fee simple (owner) and the contents of the Statement of Lien determines the parameters of the claim that may be advanced.