{"id":33267,"date":"2025-05-20T16:37:46","date_gmt":"2025-05-20T20:37:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/?p=33267"},"modified":"2025-05-20T16:37:48","modified_gmt":"2025-05-20T20:37:48","slug":"alberta-court-clarifies-entitlement-to-public-works-act-payments-in-recent-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/construction-and-infrastructure-law\/alberta-court-clarifies-entitlement-to-public-works-act-payments-in-recent-ruling\/","title":{"rendered":"Alberta Court clarifies entitlement to Public Works Act<\/i> payments in recent ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

When multiple parties contribute to a public construction project, but not all get paid, which of these parties has the legal right to claim unpaid funds? This question recently came before the Alberta Court of King’s Bench in a rare and significant decision interpreting the Public Works Act<\/em>, RSA 2000, c P-46 (the \u201cPWA<\/strong>\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Alberta Social Housing Corporation v Dawson Wallace Construction Ltd.<\/em><\/a>,<\/em> the Court allowed the appeal of a General Contractor and dismissed the competing claims of two \u201cSubsubcontractors.\u201d The decision is noteworthy as there is minimal judicial interpretation of the PWA, and it specifically bars submitted PWA claims of subsubcontractors on the basis of a strict interpretation of Section 14 of the PWA, which only refers to \u201ccontractors\u201d and \u201csubcontractors.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The dispute arose from a public construction project commissioned by the Alberta Social Housing Corporation (\u201cASHC<\/strong>\u201d), which contracted a General Contractor. The General Contractor subcontracted a portion of the work to a Subcontractor, who then further subcontracted to two Subsubcontractors. After the Subcontractor abandoned the project and subsequently declared bankruptcy, the two Subsubcontractors were left unpaid. Both Subsubcontractors filed Notices of Claim under Section 14 of the PWA, seeking to recover the unpaid amounts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response, ASHC paid $311,164.27 into Court pursuant to a consent order under Section 15(4) of the PWA. The order confirmed the amount was \u201cdue and owing\u201d to the General Contractor under its contract with ASHC, but expressly preserved the claims of the two Subsubcontractors pending the Court\u2019s determination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The core legal issue before the Alberta Court of King\u2019s Bench was straightforward: who between the General Contractor and the two Subsubcontractors was legally entitled to the funds held in Court?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The application decision<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Application Judge dismissed all parties\u2019 applications on the basis of inadequate evidence, choosing not to resolve the dispute over entitlement. However, he did find that the two Subsubcontractors had a sufficient basis to advance a claim under a \u201cpragmatic and remedial\u201d reading of the PWA and the consent order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court\u2019s analysis: Who is entitled to PWA funds?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

On appeal, the Alberta Court of King\u2019s Bench allowed the General Contractor\u2019s appeal and dismissed those of the two Subsubcontractors. The Court\u2019s decision relied heavily on two foundational Alberta authorities:<\/p>\n\n\n\n