Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Julmac sought an injunction to prevent the Province of New Brunswick (PNB) from removing it from three bridge contracts but faced a statutory bar under s. 14(2) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act (PACA).

• The court determined that the relief sought was effectively against the Crown itself—not against an individual Crown officer—thus triggering the Crown's absolute immunity from injunctive relief.

• Julmac argued that PNB acted in bad faith and beyond its contractual authority, but the court found these allegations insufficient to bypass statutory immunity provisions.

• Julmac’s alternative request for an interim declaratory order was also denied, as such orders are considered final in nature and inappropriate on an interim basis.

• The companion decision addressed Julmac’s RTIPPA requests for disclosure of public records, which PNB had halted mid-process citing potential injury to ongoing legal proceedings.

• The court ordered PNB to resume and complete disclosure, finding insufficient evidence that compliance would injure the conduct of legal proceedings, distinguishing this case from precedent.

Background and bridge project disputes

Julmac Contracting Ltd., a civil construction firm, held three active bridge construction and rehabilitation contracts with the Province of New Brunswick (PNB) through its Department of Transportation and Infrastructure (DTI). The contracts related to the Anderson Bridge, Approach Channel Bridge (Mactaquac), and Centennial Bridge projects, each worth over $15 million and awarded via public tenders between 2022 and 2023. By early 2025, Julmac alleged that PNB had wrongfully issued default notices and removed it from these contracts without formally terminating them under the applicable contractual provisions.

PNB’s position was that Julmac underperformed, missed deadlines, refused to follow directives, and submitted potentially false statutory declarations. Based on these concerns, PNB issued default notices on January 31, 2025, followed by removal notices on February 10, 2025. Julmac denied all performance issues, arguing the actions were retaliatory—arising from ongoing litigation, a Canada Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) complaint, and Right to Information requests—rather than based on actual defaults.

Legal arguments over injunctive relief

Julmac filed a preliminary motion for interlocutory injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent PNB from engaging other contractors and to reinstate its rights under the contracts. Julmac relied on s. 14 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act (PACA), arguing that although injunctive relief against the Crown was barred under s. 14(2), relief could still be granted against Crown officers (such as the Minister of DTI) under s. 14(4), citing Smith v. Attorney General (NS) as authority for exceptions when Crown officers exceed statutory authority or act in bad faith.

Justice Petrie rejected Julmac’s request, finding that the motion was directed at the Crown itself, not an individual Crown officer. He ruled that the exceptions under s. 14(4)—such as acting ultra vires or with personal liability—did not apply here, as the case was a straightforward contractual dispute without evidence of statutory overreach, abuse of power, or tortious conduct. The relief sought would effectively force PNB to re-engage with Julmac and resume work, thus amounting to a mandatory injunction and specific performance, which is explicitly prohibited under PACA. Julmac’s attempt to reframe the request as one to maintain the status quo was also dismissed for similar reasons.

The court further held that interim declaratory relief was not available as a substitute in these circumstances, citing the principle that declarations are by nature final and not appropriate for interlocutory determinations.

Related decision on access to information

In a related but separate decision, Justice Christie considered Julmac’s referral under the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (RTIPPA), after PNB ceased processing two voluminous requests relating to compliance with standard construction specifications by other contractors. PNB had initially cooperated, acknowledging the scale of the requests—estimated at up to 250,000 pages—and had been working toward phased disclosures.

However, in November 2024, PNB abruptly halted processing, citing the Hobbs decision, which allowed a public body to refuse disclosure if it could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct of ongoing legal proceedings (s. 29(1)(o) RTIPPA). PNB argued that the requested documents went to the heart of the contractual dispute and could prejudice the litigation.

Justice Christie found that PNB had not met the burden of proving such injury to the conduct of the legal process. He distinguished Hobbs, emphasizing that the relevant statutory test was not whether disclosure would affect the merits of a case, but whether it would hinder the conduct of the proceedings. There was no credible evidence on the record to support such an inference. As a result, the court ordered PNB to resume processing and complete disclosure within a specified timeframe, awarding costs to Julmac.

Conclusion

Julmac’s efforts to restrain PNB from removing it from three bridge contracts were denied due to statutory immunity protections in PACA. The court found no legal basis to bypass the bar on injunctive or declaratory relief. In contrast, Julmac succeeded in compelling PNB to resume its halted RTIPPA disclosures, as the court held that the legal exception cited by PNB was misapplied. Collectively, these decisions reflect a strict interpretation of statutory limits on interim relief against the Crown, while also affirming transparency obligations under public access laws.