Nunavut court decides on CamBay gravel dispute

A dispute over gravel in the western Nunavut town of Cambridge Bay, shown here, has ended with a recent judgment by a Nunavut justice. (PHOTO BT JANE GEORGE)

A judgment in a four-year-old dispute between Cambridge Bay business-owners over a gravel-laying contract has produced a $10,000 settlement in favour of Corey Dimitruk and Go Cargo Taxi Ltd.

That’s according to a July 20 judgment by Nunavut Justice Sue Cooper.

And if there’s a message to take away from this court battle over gravel, it’s that you can’t take justice into your own hands if there’s a legal way to resolve a dispute.

Cooper had to decide whether Sandi Gillis, Brian Langille and Qillaq Innovations were right to take back some gravel they had laid for Dimitruk when they felt they were owed some money.

Dimitruk had claimed $19,500 from Qillaq for the additional hauling and spreading of gravel on a residential lot in Cambridge Bay.

That because, when Dimitruk didn’t pay a last instalment of $5,000 to Qillaq and wanted to see a trench dug as part of the work, Qillaq went in and took back some of the gravel they had laid to recover the debt.

In court, Dimitruk wanted Qillaq to pay for the fill he had to put in to repair the lost gravel.

Here’s how the dispute played out:

In late September 2011, Dimitruk contacted Qillaq to talk about laying a gravel pad for a residential lot.

Dimitruk was “clearly concerned about ensuring there was proper drainage from the lot,” Cooper said in her judgment.

The price was agreed on and was to be paid in four equal instalments.

“It seems that there was little communication until the following June, at which time there was continued discussion about digging a trench around the lot,” Cooper said.

But Qillaq said the digging of a trench would cost more money and reminded Dimitruk that the last payment for work done the previous fall was still outstanding.

On July 17, 2011, Qillaq entered the lot and removed fill from a corner of the lot in an amount they calculated to be worth $5,000 — the money they were owed, the judgment relates.

“The defendants did not provide the plaintiff with notice that they intended to do this, however, they did speak with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP] to give them notice of their intention. Of course, the RCMP do not advise on civil matters and this is not something they would have become involved in.”

Dimitruk then replaced the fill that had been removed by buying fill on an adjacent lot and having it moved and distributed on his lot.

The cost of this fill was $13,000 and the cost of moving and spreading it was $6,500, for a total of $19,500, he said.

“There is some suggestion in the evidence that the fill could have been replaced for less,” Cooper said.

The issue before Cooper: whether Qillaq was entitled to enter the premises and remove the fill. Her answer — a clear no.

“The defendants had other remedies available to them, including the commencement of a small claims action for a debt owing or the filing of a lien against the property,” Cooper said.

“In an effort to recover $5,000, the defendants took steps that resulted in losses to the plaintiff far in excess of the amount owing. In my view, the defendants were not entitled to resort to self-help in these circumstances.”