LEADERSHIP REVIEW
Interview with
James Little, Associate, Singleton Urquhart Reynolds Vogel LLP When and where did the interest arise to become a lawyer? My interest in advocacy arose in high school. At that time, I took an elective class called Dispute Resolution and the Law, which fascinated me. I enjoyed learning about the inherent complexities of the legal system and the unique challenges litigators faced on a dayto-day basis. Over the course of my undergraduate degree, my academic trajectory took me on another path into the world of civil and environmental engineering. However, while I did enjoy my time learning and developing as an engineering student, and then engineerin-training, the idea of working as a litigator had strongly taken root and ultimately pulled me towards law school. What did you study prior to going to Law School? I studied Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Western Ontario (now Western University). There, I was lucky to learn from some of the finest technical minds in Canada. Ultimately, I finished with a Bachelor of Engineering Sciences with a focus on Water and Wastewater Engineering. This background has allowed me to transition naturally into the field of construction law, and often provides me with necessary insight into problems our clients face in the construction industry. Which Law School did you attend and what do you view as a highlight? After a few years working as an engineerin-training, I was fortunate to be accepted and enrolled at the University of Windsor – Faculty of Law. There, I was able to develop my legal skills while also meting an amazing group of future
lawyers. I also was in a unique position; as the only engineer in my graduating class (and one of only a few in the faculty at the time), I was able to approach legal problems with a different lens. Engineers are taught to focus on logical solutions to problems and to approach them meticulously and with efficiency. Lawyers are also taught to problem solve and importantly, to write effectively. In combining the skills I had been taught at both of these institutions, I found myself uniquely positioned to enter the legal field, seeking a position related to engineering and legal challenges facing the construction industry. Where did you work after Law School and what were your particular experiences? During law school and after graduation, I was employed by a large national law firm where I worked as a summer student, articled student, and associate, with a focus on infrastructure development, public policy, construction litigation and dispute resolution. I have since developed a broad practice at Singleton Urquhart Reynolds Vogel LLP, a nationally and internationally recognized construction law firm, that handles significant and complex construction and infrastructure files. There, under tutelage provided by the leaders of the firm – and in particular partners Bruce Reynolds and Sharon Vogel – we are building a construction practice that includes public-private partnerships and large procurements involving a wide variety of projects such a highways, mines, transit, bridges, hospitals, and other significant projects. As well, I have been involved in lawsuits and arbitrations involving international and domestic
26 | CONSTRUCTION ECONOMIST | www.ciqs.org | Spring 2019
James Little
entities. I have also had the privilege of working with Bruce and Sharon on the amendments to the Construction Lien Act (now Construction Act) in Ontario, as well a being engaged by Public Services and Procurement Canada to propose legislation at the federal level in relation to issues of prolonged payment cycles and inefficiency of dispute resolution. What do you see as the change facing the construction industry? As we often tell our clients, change is coming. This change in the form of prompt payment and adjudication in Canada’s construction industry. For example, in fall 2019, Ontario’s Construction Act will enter into its second phase of transition where, on October 1, 2019, prompt payment and adjudication provisions under the legislation will come into force. What this means is new statutory requirements for prompt payment, and a completely new form of dispute resolution―that has been effectively employed in the UK for decades―will be brought into Ontario to break up dispute grid-lock and allow cash to flow on construction projects. Construction businesses will need to adapt their practices, their procedures, and potentially even adjust staffing, to accommodate the new requirements of the legislation. Change is not limited to Ontario, however. As announced in the federal Fall 2018 Economic Statement, the Government of Canada will introduce legislation to implement the prompt payment of contractors and sub-contractors for federal projects on federal lands, as well as the adjudication of payment issues. We have also heard that several provinces across the country are following suit, as they introduce To return to Table of Contents CLICK HERE
