No Gag Order On TransitNext Deal: THE VOTER
Before these $100-million worth of cases against Transit Next get settled, we need someone (a court?) to order that any resolution cannot include any form of non-disclosure agreement.
These usually mean that the “innocent” party gets more money in the final settlement if they agree never to reveal the full story, especially the particulars of the guilt of the other party or the amount of money it cost to seal their lips.
Without this NDA, it’s highly unlikely that we’ll ever get the true and full story of what went on with the Trillium Line from its first appearance as a concept. I don’t know if the province has the power to make such an order or if a judge charged with the inquiry could do so but, without it, the parties will just build a wall high enough to hide their deeds and skip off into the sunset.
Various contractors have claimed that AtkinsRéalis (TransitNext is a subsidiary), through its actions, delayed the construction in several ways which made the final product two years late. Is the city taking any kind of legal action against them using that information? Have they paid them for the work that, in turn, they have chosen not to pay their contractors and so the sub-contractors haven’t been paid?
The Voter is a respected community activist and long-time Bulldog commenter who prefers to keep her identity private.
For You:
Canadians Are In This Together: COLLENETTE
SNC Failed Tech Specs Twice In Trillium Line Bid
Time For Another Provincial Rail Inquiry
Bookmark The Bulldog, click here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
– The Bulldog – News Feed Enter 
Voter. I was wondering the same thing, but doesn’t the responsibility for the LRT mess ultimately lie in the hands of city council? If they didn’t do their homework, as Diane Deans obviously did, and voted the way slim Jim Watson told them to, how can the TransitNext be held responsible? And yes, it would be nice to have the truth revealed at some point.
Almost all construction contracts contain arbitration agreements which means everything has an NDA and cannot go to court. It’s kind of bizarre that this contract does not appear to have arbitration instead of going to court. Strange
Sisco,
The way I understand it is that TransitNext’s contract is with the City but the other companies are under contract to TransitNext or one of its subcontractors. The City has no contractual relationship with anybody but TransitNext.
Any good lawyer would have learned early on that you sue anything that moves so that A can’t claim they have no liability and that it’s all B’s fault. I’m surprised that these companies wouldn’t have included the City in their lawsuits since TransitNext’s best defence is to say that they aren’t responsible for things being late because they got the plans late from the City, etc., etc. You have to include any entity that may have any liability from the get-go.
The other reason you do that is that the judge may find that A and B are each 50% liable. If you didn’t include B, in this case the City, in your court action, the most you will get is the 50% from A.