Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Court rules against local logging firm

The B.C. Court of Appeal has sided with the provincial government in a dispute over whether a Prince George logging company was wrongfully denied a licence to harvest timber on Crown land near Vanderhoof.
logging-company-loses.11.jpg

The B.C. Court of Appeal has sided with the provincial government in a dispute over whether a Prince George logging company was wrongfully denied a licence to harvest timber on Crown land near Vanderhoof.

The dispute was over a tender the ministry issued in June 2012.

M.G. Logging owner Manuel Goncalves submitted what turned out to be the highest bid and in July 2012 the ministry posted a notice on its website stating the licence had been awarded to his company.

But it was withdrawn the next day.

The ministry concluded the bid was made by a company not registered as a B.C. Timber Sales Enterprise (BCSTE). It turned out that while M.G. Logging and Sons is registered, Goncalves submitted the bid under another name, M.G. Logging Enterprise Ltd.

Goncalves also failed to include an incorporation number in the space provided but did write in Sons' and the registration number in the space provided for that purpose.

Goncalves argued he submitted the bid under Enterprise by mistake and the ministry understood Sons was the applicant. He further argued the ministry had stated on its website that the contract was awarded to Sons and subsequently could not revoke the award.

Conversely, the ministry contends Enterprise was the applicant and was not eligible, the posting did not constitute awarding of the licence and there was no contract between the parties.

In a decision issued Dec. 30, Court of Appeal Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon found in part that the tendering document did not contain a discretion clause that would have allowed the ministry to accept the highest bid even if it contains a minor discrepancy.

Consequently, Fenlon said the bid must be "strictly compliant" before it can be accepted. She further commented that the identity of the contracting party an "essential term of the contract."

"It would be open to other bidders to protest the award of the licence other than the named applicant, especially when the named applicant was ineligible to bid because it does not have a BCSTE registration number," Fenlon said.