Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Julmac Contracting sought an injunction to prevent New Brunswick from removing it from three bridge contracts.

• The Province invoked statutory Crown immunity under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act (PACA), which prohibits injunctions against the Crown.

• The Court ruled that the requested relief was effectively against the Crown, not an individual officer, and thus barred by s. 14(2) PACA.

• Allegations of bad faith or contractual breach were found insufficient to bypass Crown immunity as no statutory excess or tort was alleged.

• Julmac’s request for interim declaratory relief was also denied, as such relief is generally unavailable in interlocutory proceedings.

• The motion was dismissed, with costs awarded to the Province of New Brunswick.

Facts of the case

This case involved a dispute between Julmac Contracting Ltd. and the Province of New Brunswick over three separate bridge construction contracts. Julmac had won competitive bids for:

• Anderson Bridge (Contract No. 22-0288, worth ~$15.7M),

• Approach Channel Bridge (Mactaquac, Contract No. 22-0035, ~$17.7M), and

• Centennial Bridge (Contract No. 22-0282, ~$16.2M).

By late 2024 and early 2025, the relationship between Julmac and the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure (DTI) had deteriorated significantly. DTI accused Julmac of missing deadlines, refusing to follow instructions, and creating an adversarial environment. Julmac denied these allegations, asserting that delays stemmed from DTI's own conduct and bad faith. DTI issued formal notices of default on January 31, 2025, and removal notices on February 10, 2025, stripping Julmac of all three contracts.

Preliminary motion for injunctive relief

In response, Julmac filed a preliminary motion seeking interim injunctive relief to reverse the removal notices and prevent the province from hiring third-party contractors. Alternatively, they sought a declaration affirming their right to complete the work. Julmac grounded its motion in s. 14 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act (PACA).

The motion was heard on March 20, 2025, and dealt primarily with the jurisdictional issue of whether the Court could grant the relief requested against the Crown.

Legal arguments and statutory analysis

Julmac acknowledged that s. 14(2) of PACA bars injunctions against the Crown but argued the Court could issue an injunction against a Crown officer, namely the Minister of DTI, under s. 14(4). Julmac relied on the case Smith v. AG (NS), where the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that injunctive relief may be available against Crown officers acting outside statutory authority or committing civil wrongs.

Julmac argued that PNB's actions constituted bad faith and were motivated by unrelated litigation between the parties, rather than contractual performance issues. They also claimed PNB was using the default notices to gain leverage in other disputes, including those under the CFTA, freedom of information, and Ombudsperson orders.

PNB countered that:

• The motion was clearly against the Crown, not an individual officer;

• There were no allegations of statutory abuse or personal liability by any Crown officer;

• This was a contractual dispute, not one involving a statutory overreach or tort; and

• Even if directed at a Crown officer, the relief would effectively enjoin the Crown, which remains barred under s. 14(4) PACA.

Court’s decision

Justice Petrie ruled that the motion failed on multiple grounds:

• Injunctive relief against the Crown is clearly barred under s. 14(2) of PACA.

• Julmac failed to name or target any specific Crown officer in its motion. The named respondent was the Province of New Brunswick, not the Minister of DTI.

• The Court found no allegations of ultra vires action or statutory excess, only breach of contract—which does not meet the threshold for the exceptions recognized in Smith.

• The relief requested, though framed as status quo preservation, was in substance a mandatory injunction requiring the Crown to reinstate Julmac’s work — which is not permitted.

• Julmac’s alternate request for interim declaratory relief was also denied, as Canadian law does not recognize temporary declaratory orders, which are inherently final in nature.

Disposition and outcome

The Court dismissed the motion in its entirety and emphasized this decision was procedural, not a ruling on the underlying merits of the contract dispute. Costs of $2,500 plus disbursements were awarded to the Province of New Brunswick.

Justice Petrie concluded that this was a purely contractual dispute and the relief sought was outside the scope of what is permitted under the PACA framework, reaffirming the strong statutory protections enjoyed by the Crown in civil litigation.