[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by officedweller

BTW - If I recall correctly, the lawsuit failed on claims of misrepresentation (i.e. it failed on the "bait & switch" "bored to cut & cover" claims) but succeeded on the basis of nuisance (which is potentially much much worse (in terms of setting a precedent) for any governmental entity building infrastructure (i.e. roads, sewers, watermains, etc.).

True that.

There is no evidence to support the allegation that the representation made in mid-2003 with respect to the method of tunnel construction was false or negligent. While that should have been apparent to the plaintiff and its counsel well in advance of trial, the claim in relation to that representation was not abandoned until the plaintiff’s closing submissions.
....
On the evidence, I find that Ms. Bird did not negligently misrepresent the likely duration of actual open trench construction. The representation was based on information and advice on which she was entitled to rely and was not untrue, inaccurate, or misleading at the time it was made.

Moreover, there is no evidence that Hazel & Co. relied on the representation that was made to make any decisions or do anything that affected its business. There is some evidence that purchasing and manufacturing decisions may have been affected by the representation. However, the consequences of such decisions will be reflected in the overall assessment of loss sustained by Hazel & Co.

It follows that the claim for damages resulting from either negligent or false
misrepresentation is dismissed as against all defendants.

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/news/bc-090527-...ine-ruling.pdf (page 30, onwards)