According to the Globe and Mail, Mike Babcock was successful earlier this month in having a lawsuit against him dismissed in the British Columbia Supreme Court.
The lawsuit, initiated in 2011 by several plaintiff construction companies, was a dispute regarding the construction of a Holiday Inn Express in Squamish, British Columbia. Babcock was an investor in the project. The dispute was that the plaintiff's tradespeople had not been paid for their work.
According to the judgment, Babcock became involved in this dispute in October 2009, while in Vancouver (the Red Wings played the Canucks on October 27, 2009). At that time, he visited the hotel site and learned that tradespeople had walked off the project.
The specific claims alleged against Babcock were that he allegedly made promises to pay the tradespeople (which allegedly induced the tradespeople to go back to work), and those promises formed a contract between Babcock and the companies that Babcock breached.
The Court found that there was no evidence that Babcock made these alleged promises.
Babcock brought an application against the plaintiffs for summary trial, which is a speedier process that foregoes the calling of witnesses in a conventional trial in favour of a simple hearing. The hearing was before Justice Kelleher on November 9, 2015 and January 8, 2016. The case was decided on March 1.
The Court reviewed correspondence between the parties and found no evidence that Babcock made any promises at all, nor would he have had the authority as an outside investor of the project to make those promises.
The Court also dismissed the breach of contract claim against Babcock, finding that there was no contract:
[52] The evidence does not establish that on October 26, 2009, Mr. Babcock entered into a collateral agreement where the plaintiffs would return to work and complete the contract and Mr. Babcock would be personally liable for paying them.
[53] The plaintiffs’ versions of the October 26, 2009 meeting are inherently unlikely. First, of the many representations and statements that Mr. Babcock is alleged to have made, many of them are incapable of constituting a promise to pay personally.
[54] Mr. Babcock was encouraging the trades to return to work by telling them, in effect, that he would become more actively involved in seeing them paid. He agreed to do this by forwarding information on to other investors to make them aware of the situation. The evidence shows that Mr. Babcock’s role was to facilitate the flow of information between Colter and the management of the Squamish JV.
[55] I accept that Mr. Babcock wanted the hotel finished in time for the Olympics. He had a personal stake in the success of the project. It does not follow from that, however, that he put his own money forward and guaranteed payment of the accounts.
The full judgment can be read here.