Supplier name · 3 yearly totals · Victoria only

Sparker Construction Ltd

The City of Victoria disclosed paying this name $13,061,322.60 over three fiscal years.

$13.1M

from 1 public body over 3 fiscal years · #31 of 2,251 names by total disclosed

Who paid, and when

Each cell is one body’s yearly total for this name. Darker means more.

’232023’242024’252025

Victoria$10.50Mlarge share$2.27Mdisclosed$293Kdisclosed

Schedule held, name not in itNo schedule held — a coverage gap, not zero

Disclosed to this name, by public body and fiscal year
Public body	2023	2024	2025
City of Victoria	$10,498,026.22	$2,269,919	$293,377.38

By year, all bodies

Stacked by payer.

2023$10,498,026.22

2024$2,269,919

2025$293,377.38

Victoria

Every disclosed amount

One line per body and year, exactly as published. Each source link opens the official document at the page.

Download these 3 rows (CSV)

City of Victoria · 20252025$293,377.38Sparker Construction Ltd2025 schedule, row 360

City of Victoria · 20242024$2,269,919Sparker Construction Ltd2024 schedule, row 369

City of Victoria · 20232023$10,498,026.22Sparker Construction Ltd2023 schedule, row 338

All amounts in Canadian dollars. A year with no line means the name wasn’t in that schedule, or the schedule isn’t held here — not that the body paid nothing.

A line here doesn’t match its source? Report a correction →

Notices for this name

Automated screens. Each is a question to investigate, not a finding.

Large yearly totalNot reviewed

Victoria 2023: $10,498,026.22

Question to ask: For a large disclosed aggregate, is the label one supplier or several, and for an 'In Trust' payee who is the actual client or beneficial recipient?
What it does not prove: This is an annual aggregate disclosed amount, not an invoice, contract, transaction count, beneficial-owner attribution, or procurement finding. For an 'In Trust' / intermediary payee it does not show the client or beneficial recipient.

Year-over-year jumpNot reviewed

Victoria: $10.50M → $2.27M (2023→24)Victoria: $2.27M → $293K (2024→25)

Question to ask: Does the year-over-year change reflect a new or terminating relationship, or a re-classification or one-off, and what (if any) project or contract evidence explains it?
What it does not prove: A year-over-year change in a disclosed aggregate amount is not evidence of a new contract, a non-competitive award, or wrongdoing. Timing and context require project, contract, or council-record evidence.