The work will be done by the end of the summer, but the court battle rages on over a $2-million excavating job which Norcope Industries says was improperly given to another company.

If the government gets its way, the trial would be even longer than originally expected.

Appearing on behalf of the government, Vancouver lawyer Sarah Hansen spent this morning arguing against a summary trial – one where no witnesses are called and the judge relies solely on written testimony and the lawyers' arguments.

Norcope is suing the government, claiming it breached the $15.9-million contract Norcope was awarded last March for the installation of water, sewer and utility lines for the new Whistle Bend subdivision.

Partway through the work, the government amended its plans and realized it need an extra 220,000 cubic metres of dirt moved.

According to documents filed in Yukon Supreme Court, the government asked Norcope for an estimate on the job and Norcope responded with a quote of about $6 million.

Sidhu Trucking said it would do it for a third of that, and the government went with Sidhu.

When Norcope was ordered off the property so Sidhu could do the work, owner Doug Gonder ordered his employees to block Sidhu from the site. He then had all the equipment he would have used driven to the parking lot of the Yukon government administration building in protest.

Gonder also asked for a stop-work order, but soon abandoned that quest because the work would have been three-quarters done by the time a judge would hear the application.

Gonder claims he spent a considerable amount of money to secure the equipment for the job, which he says should have gone to him under the existing contract he had with the government.

The government says it had no obligation to give Norcope the work, and it has the right to add, change or remove work at its own discretion.

Once Gonder had laid his suit against the government, the Yukon countersued the company for impeding Sidhu's work. The government also said Norcope should pay its legal fees for the aborted stop-work application.

In court this morning, Hansen said there is secondhand and contradictory evidence given in the hundreds of pages of affidavits filed in the case.

She said the judge needs to hear from the witnesses themselves so he or she can decide whose version of events is the most reliable.

"Credibility must certainly be tested,” she said.

Justice Ron Veale suggested the first part of the dispute – whether the extra work falls under the existing contract – could be dealt with in a summary trial.

Hansen said that would be an inefficient use of everyone's time, because they would all have to come back and deal with the countersuit and end up covering the same ground.

"You're going to go over the same things three, maybe four, times,” she said of the alternative.

Hansen also said she wants to call an expert witness on industry standards to testify on the contract.

Although that evidence could be given on paper, she said, it would be more useful to the judge if he or she could have the expert present to answer any questions or give more detail on any points.

Norcope's lawyer, Karen Martin, was scheduled to make her arguments this afternoon.

She has indicated she will argue in favour of a summary trial on the contract issue, and a separate hearing for the counterclaim.