The City of Winnipeg has fired dozens of defendants in a legal battle over its police department

WINNIPEG – The City of Winnipeg has dismissed claims against dozens of defendants in a court battle over a botched police headquarters project.

At the council meeting on March 23, 2023, the report of the executive policy committee was read, in which the contractor Caspian Construction Inc. and all but 11 other Caspian-affiliated defendants were offered dismissal of their claims, which now owe the city a $21.5 million settlement.

Crown Judge Glenn Joyal issued a judgment on Dec. 15, 2020, dismissing the city's claims against all defendants except Caspian and the Caspian-related parties.

Winnipeg's police headquarters, located at 245 Smith Street, opened in 2016 at a cost of approximately $214 million. The city initially filed the lawsuit in 2020 after a five-year RCMP investigation into the project resulted in no criminal charges.

In 2022, a judge found that Phil Shigle, the city's chief administrative officer at the time, took $327,000 in bribes from contractors to facilitate the project.

“Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Glenn Joyal noted in his judgment in the civil case that Schaegle had extensive records of working to extend deadlines, reduce bonding requirements, leak classified information and breach a project contract in favor of Caspian Construction,” the magazine writes. Commerce reported at the time.

The original lawsuit was expanded in May 2022 after lawyers for the City of Winnipeg filed a notice to add new parties to its lawsuit after the RCMP collected new evidence from Caspian Construction's computer servers.

According to media reports, the other defendants are:

• Caspian projects.
• Caspian construction.
• Caspian is owned by Armik Babakhanians, his wife Jenique and son Sean.
• Triple D Consulting Services Inc.
• Pamela Anderson, former manager of the Caspian office.
• 4816774 Manitoba Ltd. (known as mountain building).
• JAGS Development Ltd.
• Brooke Holdings Ltd.
• Logistic Holdings Ltd.
• JAW Enterprises Inc.

Joyal also rejected several cross-claims between the defendants.