b'BENCHMARKSA design-builder and project owner1.The CCDC contract only requiredand Design-Builder, was found to berecently argued over which disputethat the contract documentsthe CCDC Articles of Agreement, not resolution term governed when therebe prioritized (instead of readthe Design-Builders Contract. The were differing terms in the CCDC-14harmoniously) if there was a conflictDesign-Builders Contract was found Design-Build Stipulated Price Contractbetween the documents. The courtto be a construction document, they used and in the design-buildersheld that there was no conflictwhich was lower in priority to the general construction contract that wasbetween the dispute resolutionarbitration clause in the General incorporated into that CCDC contract as aterms because the scope of the twoConditions of the CCDC-14.contract document (the Design-Buildersterms differed: (i) the CCDC contractCONCLUSION AND KEY TAKEAWAYSContract). The approach the court took and arbitration clause coveredKnox serves as a cautionary tale to in that case provides important insight disputes about the interpretation ofcontracting parties to ensure consistency into the way that courts will resolvethe CCDC contract and processesbetween contract documents and that disputes about the interpretation of set out in the CCDC contract; andthe documents taking priority reflect the CCDC contracts and incorporated (ii) the Design-Builders Contractintention of the parties.contract documents. required that disputes about In Knox Presbyterian Church v. Oakwoodday-to-day issues that arise in theAdditionally, misunderstandings as to the Designers & Builders, 2024 ONSC 3131, aconstruction project be dealt withmeaning or scope of a contract could dispute arose when a buried power linefirst by a court. Since the disputebecome evident if the parties do not was exposed at the start of the design- related to concealed conditions andtake the necessary time to consider and build project. The design-builder issueda notice issued under GC 6.4 of thenegotiate the contract. Courts will only notice of increased costs to the ownerCCDC-14, the court found that theintervene or rectify the contract to align under GC 6.4 of the CCDC-14, but thesubstance of the dispute fell underwith a partys mistaken understanding of owner disputed the change order. Thethe arbitration clause. the contract in limited circumstances, and 2.Even if the court was wrong andthe costs to pursue that intervention can design-builder then refused to resumebe substantial. In other words, a party that work on the project unless the changethere was no conflict between therushes through contracting does so at order increasing the contract price two documents, the court foundtheir own peril. was issued.that the CCDC-14 was clear that it took priority over any project- The lawyers at MLT Aikins have ample The parties attempted to resolve thespecific contract documents suchexperience with negotiating and drafting issue, but were unsuccessful. The owneras the Design-Builders Contract.construction contracts and would be pleased then served a notice to appoint anThe document listed first in priority,to assist your team with reviewing, drafting or arbitrator pursuant to General Conditionthe Agreement between Ownernegotiating your construction contracts.8.1 of the CCDC-14. The design-builder did not respond. As a result, the owner Youre buildingbrought an application to court for an order appointing an arbitrator and the future.requiring the design-builder to participate in the arbitration to resolve the dispute. Were here to help .While the CCDC-14 requires thatdisputes regarding the interpretation, application or administration of the You need the right equipment, at the right place, right now. With an unmatched CCDC contract be resolved by way ofY ourbuildingrental fleet and branch network, we are ready to help you maximize productivity Y ur e buildingand protability. And our round the clock service and support means o earbitration, the design-builders contractYoure buildingthe equipment will work just as hard as you do. that was incorporated by the parties into 160 Mountainview RdWinnipeg, MB R3C 2E6 800.UR.RENTS the future.the CCDC-14 stipulated that disputesUnitedRentals.com the future.204-775-7171 the future.regarding the interpretation of the 2015 United Rentals, Inc.contract, plans and specifications, or Were here to help.purported deficiencies be resolved first W r re to help by a court. The design-builder arguede e he . Were here to help.that the language in the Design-Builders Contract applied and took priority overYou need the right equipment, at the right place, right now. With an unmatchedYou need the right equipment, at the right place, right now. With an unmatched the arbitration agreement in the CCDC- You need the right equipment, at the right place, right now. With an unmatched rental fleet and branch network, we are ready to help you maximize productivityrental fleet and branch network, we are ready to help you maximize productivityrental fleet and branch network, we are ready to help you maximize productivityand protability. And our round the clock service and support meansand profitability. And our round the clock service and support means14, such that it was not obligated toand protability. And our round the clock service and support meansthe equipment will work just as hard as you do. the equipment will work just as hard as you do.participate in arbitration. The design- the equipment will work just as hard as you do. 160 Mountainview Rdbuilder therefore requested that the court160 Mounegi, MB R3C 2E6Winniptanview Rd UnitedRentals.comdismiss the application to appoint anWinni 4- eg, MB R3C 2E6 UnitedRentals.com20 p 775-7171 800.UR.RENTSarbitrator and compel arbitration. 204-775-7171 800.UR.RENTS 2015 United Rentals, Inc.The court granted the owners application 2015 United Rentals, Inc.and ordered that the parties participate in arbitration. In doing so, it held that:Issue 3 | Fall Edition | 2024 BUILD MANITOBA 23'