Chohan Carriers is suing the City of Maple Ridge, and claiming some $27 million in damages, over the trucking company's inability to operate at a Hammond site.

The case was supposed to be at the Supreme Court in Vancouver this week, for a trial starting Jan. 6 and running for 34 days, but will be rescheduled. 

The city asked for an adjournment after Chohan introduced new financial information in October, and that delay was granted by associate Judge Kimberly Robertson in a recent decision. The plaintiffs and the city will arrange a new time for the trial.

The plaintiffs are Chohan Carriers and Chohan Investment Group, who accuse the city of "misrepresentation and misuse or misfeasance in public office," with respect to the investment group's purchase of a property, according to the judge's recent decision. The site in Hammond was to be used for Chohan Carrier's transloading and freight operations.

"However, after the purchase of the property, there were certain actions taken, or not taken, by the city which resulted in weight restrictions with respect to traffic, which effectively eliminated the ability of the OpCo to maintain its operations, as it could not use the roads to do so," said the judgment.

In 2017, Chohan began operating at 19966 Wharf Street, until neighbours of the Hammond neighbourhood complained to the city about their vehicles meeting big trucks on the narrow streets. A semi truck and trailer flipped on its side after failing to navigate a corner.

READ ALSO: 

Mayor Nicole Read was in office at the time, and said the matter was dealt with by the city legal department. The road was blocked by concrete barriers to stop truck traffic.

The company now seeks loss of revenue from operations, and damages over the property's loss of value.

The city asked for an adjournment, because of the Oct. 24 release of 378 financial records by Chohan, and delivery of newly disclosed documents including deposit slips and invoices. The city asked for an opportunity to fully review and investigate the documents, while the plaintiffs opposed a delay in the trial.

The judge noted the trial was originally set for May 2022, but the parties agreed to reschedule to June 2023. The matter did not proceed at that later date either, because not enough court time had been scheduled.