Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Julmac’s motion for interlocutory injunctive or declaratory relief was dismissed as statute-barred under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

• The motion judge found Julmac had targeted the Crown itself, not a Crown servant, precluding relief under the Act.

• Even if a Crown servant had been the target, the court concluded none of the recognized exceptions to Crown immunity applied.

• The Court of Appeal ruled the March 28, 2025 decision was interlocutory, not final, and thus not appealable as of right.

• Leave to appeal was denied because none of the Rule 62.03(4) criteria—conflicting authority, doubt as to correctness, or general legal importance—were satisfied.

• The Court awarded $1,500 in costs to the Province of New Brunswick upon dismissing Julmac’s motion for leave to appeal.

Facts and procedural background

On March 20, 2025, Julmac Contracting Ltd. brought a Preliminary Motion before the Court of King’s Bench, seeking interlocutory injunctive relief or, alternatively, interlocutory declaratory relief against the Province of New Brunswick. The motion was dismissed by decision dated March 28, 2025. The motion judge concluded the claim was statute-barred under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. P-18, because the motion was directed at the Crown itself rather than at a Crown servant. In the alternative, the judge found that even if the motion were against a Crown servant, none of the exceptions to Crown immunity applied.

On April 4, 2025, Julmac filed a Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal, asserting the decision was final in nature. It also attempted to file a Notice of Appeal, which was rejected by the Registrar’s Office pending resolution of the leave application. Julmac stated it sought leave to protect its appeal rights and requested an extension of time to file the appeal.

Policy terms and statutory framework

The motion judge's ruling was grounded in sections 14(2) and 14(4) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, which prohibit injunctive relief against the Crown or Crown servants acting lawfully in the performance of their duties. The Court emphasized that injunctive or declaratory relief is only available when a Crown servant acts unlawfully, in bad faith, or in deliberate violation of established law. These legal exceptions were not met in this case.

Court of Appeal proceedings and outcome

At the April 25, 2025 hearing, the Honourable Justice Quigg determined the March 28 decision was interlocutory. Citing precedent, the Court emphasized that the legal nature of the order—not its practical effect—determines whether it is interlocutory or final. Because the underlying rights and claims remained unresolved, the decision was not final.

The Court proceeded to hear Julmac’s motion for leave to appeal and dismissed it after oral submissions, with reasons provided on May 23, 2025. The Court applied Rule 62.03(4), which permits leave only where there is a conflicting decision, doubt about the correctness of the ruling, or matters of sufficient legal importance. Justice Quigg found no conflicting case law, no error in the motion judge’s legal reasoning, and no broader systemic importance justifying appellate intervention.

Julmac’s comparison to other cases such as A.L.S. and C.G.S. v. Minister of Social Development and C.M.M. v. New Brunswick (Social Development) was rejected, as the Court found the cited decisions were legally consistent when viewed in context. Specifically, those decisions held that injunctive relief is only available where a Crown servant acts unlawfully or in bad faith, which was not established here.

As none of the Rule 62.03(4) criteria were met, the Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered Julmac to pay $1,500 in costs.