INTERPRETATION - Ordinary meaning - Context

Law360 Canada (April 21, 2023, 6:40 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Worley Canada Services Ltd. (Worley) from dismissal of its application for summary dismissal of Agrium, Inc.’s (Agrium) claims. Worley argued that the application judge’s interpretation of the Master Engineering Services Agreement (MESA) was unreasonable. Agrium brought an action against multiple parties who were involved in an upgrade project at Agrium’s Carseland plant. Agrium claimed damages against Worley and others for the cost to repair property damage to the plant and the cost of loss due to business interruption, among others. Agrium alleged it retained Worley to provide engineering and design services in relation to the development and installation of a programmable logic-based safety instrumented system in the steam drum level measurement system of the plant and that Worley failed to correct shortcomings in the design and instrument installation. Worley applied for summary dismissal of Agrium’s claims. Worley’s argument that there was no merit to Agrium’s claims centered on article 8.1 (Breach of Engineer’s Warranties) and article 15.7 (Remedies) of the MESA. Because Worley had no notice of Agrium’s claims until it received the Statement of Claim, which was served outside of the 18-month Warranty Period set out in article 8.1(d), Worley argued that Agrium no longer had the right to seek the sole remedy available to it for its alleged losses and damages. The chambers judge agreed the question raised by the application could be answered fairly on the available record and a trial was not required. However, he dismissed Worley’s appeal because he did not interpret the MESA as barring Agrium’s claims the way Worley contended it did....
LexisNexis® Research Solutions

Related Sections