2 total
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a supplier's application, finding no error in contract interpretation or breach of good faith in a public procurement process.
The appellant, Stericycle ULC, appealed an order dismissing its application for a declaration that it, rather than Daniels Sharpsmart Canada Limited, was the primary supplier for Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under a public tendering process.
Stericycle argued that the application judge erred in contract interpretation, allowing impermissible bid repair, and failing to properly apply the duty of good faith.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the "Six Month Provision" or the contract start date.
The court also found no breach of the duty of good faith or honest performance by HealthPRO or PHSA, as their actions were consistent with the contract's purpose and Stericycle's reasonable expectations.
Application challenging procurement award dismissed; post-award implementation delays and communications did not constitute bid repair.
The applicant, an incumbent biomedical waste disposal provider, challenged the award of a new primary supplier contract to a competitor.
The applicant alleged that the respondents engaged in bid repair and breached their duty of fairness by allowing the competitor to delay the implementation of services and assisting them with regulatory approvals post-award.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the duty of fairness to unsuccessful bidders ended once the contract was awarded, and that the post-award communications were operational in nature and did not constitute bid repair.
The court also rejected the argument that the respondents had irrevocably elected the applicant as the primary supplier by utilizing their services during the transition period.
