Contractors fined for manipulating Manitoba Housing bids

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 05/02/2025 (603 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

BRANDON — A group of local contractors admitted on Wednesday that they violated the federal Competition Act during a scheme to bid on Manitoba Housing projects roughly 10 years ago.

Geoff Gregoire, Guy Pringle, James Kauk, Ryan Lamont and Doug Gunnarson appeared in Brandon Court of King’s Bench to plead guilty for offences under the law. The contractors reached an agreement with the Crown prosecutor to accept fines as high as $61,000 each on the condition that criminal charges against them be stayed.

The Crown had acknowledged weaknesses in its evidence that could undermine the case. Defence lawyers added it was a representative from Manitoba Housing who had approached and encouraged the contractors to bid on the projects in a way that led to the violations.

Under the plea bargain, the contractors would admit they had violated the Competition Act and receive fines of: $61,000 to Gregoire, $53,000 to Kauk, $33,000 to Pringle, $25,000 to Gunnarson and $24,000 to Lamont.

Justice Elliot Leven noted that the fines reflect the length of time each contractor was involved in the scheme.

The contractors had been charged with conspiracy to commit fraud over $5,000, a Criminal Code violation, and conspiring to allocate contracts under the Competition Act.

The Crown told court Wednesday the contractors discussed their bids with each other and decided who would win before they submitted their offers to Manitoba Housing, an arm of the provincial government.

The Crown said this created an uncompetitive bidding system that appeared competitive.

Crown attorney Dan Manning said there were several concerns about the strength of evidence had the case gone to trial. Examples included that the contractors’ roughly 10-year-old text messages, seized as evidence, were now harder to submit to court because Canada had strengthened its digital privacy laws.

In addition, a Crown witness would have to testify against the contractors based on 10-year-old memory and notes, and that a separate testimony was shaky as the witness was interviewed by investigators who had used leading questions.

Defence lawyers said it was a Manitoba Housing representative who “brought in” all five contractors into the scheme and encouraged them to bid on projects in an anti-competitive way. Details about the representative, such as whether they were charged or penalized, were not discussed in court.

The defence stressed that the contractors delivered high-quality work and netted profit margins that are typical of the industry.

Defence lawyer Richard Wolson said they had profit margins of about 10 per cent on the projects in which bids violated the Competition Act. He said that margin is within reasonable bounds for the industry, and noted the Crown agreed the projects for Manitoba Housing were built at an expert level.

Manning told court the Crown could prove more than 50 bids were manipulated from 2011 to 2016. The total value of those bids was $3.3 million.

Leven said he supported the agreement that had been reached, the penalties were proportionate, and the guilty pleas were a sign of remorse.

He said with the potential weakness of the evidence, it was possible some of the accused may have been acquitted had the case gone to trial.

— Brandon Sun