Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 16:16

From: David Cheifetz

Subject: New SCC case

A bit of a sticky wicket for the hypothetical subcontractor rebuffed by the general in an offer to enter into a joint venture, no?

What's the sub supposed to do? Write an anonymous letter (delivered by hand in a plain, unmarked, brown paper envelope, of course) in which the sub says, in substance, "we can't tell you who we are because that would be contrary to the bidding process, but you should know that we are a subcontractor on one of the bids who wanted to do a joint venture with the bidder. We were rebuffed. We are telling you this because we have read the decision of the SCC in Design Services v Canada, just in case we have to sue you directly for improper conduct relating to any aspect of the bid process or the granting of the contract".

Right.

DC

----- Original Message ----
From: Vaughan Black
To: Jason Neyers
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2008 11:55:34 AM
Subject: Re: New SCC case

A predictable result, I think.

However, the court's emphasis on the fact that the subcontractors had a chance to enter a joint venture but did not take it is troubling. Does that mean that there might be liability in a case that was like this one except that the subcontractors did not have an opportunity to protect themselves by entering a joint venture?

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>