Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20010423 Docket: A-728-99

CORAM:          ROTHSTEIN, J.A. NOËL, J.A. SHARLOW, J.A.

BETWEEN:

BEMAR CONSTRUCTION LTD.

Appellant

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

Heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on Monday, April 23rd, 2001.

JUDGMENT delivered at Edmonton, Alberta, on Monday, April 23rd, 2001.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                                                    Rothstein, J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                                                         Noël, J.A. Sharlow, J.A.

Date: 20010423 Docket: A-728-99 Citation: 2001 FCA 117

CORAM:          ROTHSTEIN, J.A. NOËL, J.A. SHARLOW, J.A.

BETWEEN:

BEMAR CONSTRUCTION LTD.

Appellant

-and­

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ROTHSTEIN, J.A.:

[1]         We have not been persuaded that Gibson, J. erred in granting the Respondent's application for summary judgment. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

"Marshall E. Rothstein"

EDMONTON, Alberta April 23 `d, 2001.

J.A.

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-728-99

STYLE OF CAUSE:                     BEMAR CONSTRUCTION LTD. v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

PLACE OF HEARING:                EDMONTON, ALBERTA

DATE OF HEARING:                   APRIL 23rd , 2001

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY ROTHSTEIN, J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                 NOËL, J.A. SHARLOW, J.A.

DATED:                                        APRIL 23, 2001

APPEARANCES:

Roger C. Stephens                                                                FOR THE APPELLANT

W. Brad Hardstaff                                                                FOR THE RESPONDENT Department of Justice

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Simon and Stephens                                                              FOR THE APPELLANT Edmonton, Alberta

Morris Rosenberg                                                                 FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.