| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 |
September 25, 2009 update: InTransit BC Limited Partnership has filed a Petition seeking a judicial review of the decision of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that the entire Concession Agreement with respect to the P3 (including financial information) must be released to me.
......
July 26, 2009 update: Mr. Justice Chiasson dismissed the Defendants' application for an Order that execution on the judgment obtained by Susan Heyes Inc. be stayed until after the disposition of the appeal.
.....
June 19, 2009 update: The Defendants have filed and served a Notice of Appeal today.
.....
In a judgment released May 27, 2009, the Honourable Mr. Justice Pitfield of the Supreme Court of British Columbia found that the construction of the Canada Line constituted a nuisance to Ms. Heyes' business at 16th and Cambie, Hazel & Co., and awarded it damages of $600,000 plus interest, costs and disbursements. Read the Reasons for Judgment here: upload
Our firm has received many enquiries about this matter. The following is a general response to questions that have frequently been asked and should not be considered legal advice. If specific legal advice is required, please feel free to contact Mr. Ward by e-mail by clicking the link at the bottom of this page. (cward@cameronward.com)
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:
Q. What happened in Susan Heyes’ lawsuit?
A. In 2005, lawyer Cameron Ward started an action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on behalf of Susan Heyes Inc. doing business as Hazel & Co. The claim alleged that those responsible for the project, then known as the RAV Line, for "Richmond/Airport/Vancouver", had misrepresented the nature of the manner of construction, had created a nuisance and/or were negligent. After extensive pre-trial procedures, including the exchange of thousands of pages of documents and several days of examination for discovery, the case went to trial. On May 27, 2009, following about three weeks of evidence and argument, the trial judge found that Hazel & Co. had suffered a nuisance as a result of the cut and cover construction at 16th and Cambie. The Court awarded Ms. Heyes’ business damages of $600,000 for lost business income, plus interest and court costs.
Q. Will the judgment be appealed?
A. The defendants have thirty days to file an appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. As of June 5, 2009, no appeal had been commenced yet.
Q. My business was affected too. What are my options?
A. You should seek legal advice about your specific situation without delay, as limitation periods may apply. The judgment won by Ms. Heyes is significant, and may have implications for others with similar claims.
Q. I have heard about a class action. What is the status of that?
A. A Vancouver law firm recently commenced a case on behalf of two businesses and a couple of individuals who claim that they were adversely affected by Canada Line construction. While the plaintiffs purport to represent others, the case is not a class action yet; it would have to be certified by the court to proceed as a class action and there is no indication yet when or if such certification will occur. If the case becomes certified as a class action, anyone can choose to opt in or opt out. This case is at a very early stage, as a Statement of Defence has not yet been filed and there has been no exchange of documents or discovery. No trial date has been set.
This from Trevor Lautens in the North Shore News:
"Susan Heyes got stiffed by half a dozen bureaucracies regarding Canada Line construction damage to her Cambie Street business when technical and time information proved bogus. She sued and won $600,000 in damages. Good for her lawyer, Cameron Ward. A human face and offer to compensate merchants for business losses might have lowered the bill and demonstrated some decency."
