UNIplex: the City of Dieppe sues a supplier for half a million $

In the lawsuit filed in the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick on June 21, 2021, the City of Dieppe asks Soprema to pay it the sum of $500,000 that it promised during the fundraising campaign. organized in June 2017. This campaign aimed to raise $4.5 million for the construction of the intergenerational complex.

While part of Soprema’s pledge was to be in the form of a cash amount, the other half was for a discount on roofing materials for the construction of the complex, according to the City’s allegations.

This $250,000 in donated materials was even included in the municipality’s call for tenders in 2018, where it invited bids for the construction of the intergenerational complex. The addition of the promise of donation would have been carried out on the faith of the commitments of Soprema, indicates the lawyer of the City in the procedure.

According to the lawsuit, the bidders were notified of this donation of materials. In the call for tenders, they were asked to reduce their project cost estimate by an amount of $250,000 to take this into account.

Soprema maintains that it was not aware of it. The defendant relies on an informal meeting dated March 28, 2018, during which the City allegedly showed it a draft call for tenders which provided for a donation of materials from Soprema of this value.

Meeting between Pomerleau, Soprema and the City of Dieppe

A second informal meeting would have taken place the following year, around February 28, 2019, this time in the presence of Soprema, the City and Pomerleau, the company which was awarded the call for tenders. According to the defense, the purpose was to discuss the terms of the donation of materials and other aspects of the project.

Soprema, however, would have revoked its promise in April 2019, a few months after the first shovelful of ground, in January of the same year.

The company cites a few reasons for not handing over the donation. According to the defence, there was a lack of precision from the city relating to the Complex project, which was no longer the same as originally and due to an unforeseen request from the general contractor for an additional reduction of $115,000 applicable on the purchase of materials from Soprema.

This request from Pomerleau would have arisen during the second informal meeting, supports Soprema. However, the documents filed in the Court of Queen’s Bench do not indicate why the general contractor would have requested an additional deduction on the price of the roofing materials.

Faced with this withdrawal, the City of Dieppe would have paid out of its own pocket the $250,000 necessary to make up for the shortfall and continue the construction of the Complex, she argues.

No contractual commitment, according to Soprema

The City of Dieppe stipulates that the writings, discussions and actions with the manufacturer Soprema bring together the elements giving rise to a contracti.e. an offer, an acceptance and consideration.

The two parties would have agreed to include the promise of donation in the call for tenders for the construction of the UNIplex center, according to the City.

In his answer to the Court dated November 15, 2021, Soprema’s lawyer writes that it was not a contractual commitment since his client had not signed the promise form, which would have made it possible to consolidate the pledge of donation.

In addition, an advertising contract proposed by the City – the addition of the company logo on two ice resurfacers for 10 years in exchange for the monetary donation – does not no compensationclaims Soprema.

Soprema’s lawyer therefore asks that the action brought by the City of Dieppe be dismissed.

At this time, no date for the start of the trial has been set.

It was impossible for us to know which manufacturer supplied the roofing materials for the Intergenerational Center after Soprema decided not to hand over the donation.

On the other hand, the company indicated in an email to Radio-Canada that its products had not been used on the roof of the UNIplex.

Questioned on this subject, the municipality of Dieppe preferred to refer the question to the Pomerleau company. Several requests for information sent to the Quebec firm nevertheless remained unanswered.

Neither the City nor Soprema wished to comment on the ongoing litigation.