J.C. Lisus

Two bus transportation companies sought an interlocutory injunction preventing a student transportation consortium from closing a request for proposals (RFP) for school bus services.

The moving parties alleged the procurement process violated directives under the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act and failed to follow Ministry guidance regarding fair competitive procurement.

Applying the three‑part test in RJR MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General), the court held that the plaintiffs established a serious issue to be tried concerning compliance with procurement directives and fairness of the RFP process.

The court further found that the potential loss of market share and collapse of small rural bus companies constituted irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo pending trial.

An interlocutory injunction was granted requiring the defendant to withdraw the RFP pending determination of the underlying action or a related expedited trial.

The defendant sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing his motion for summary judgment in a defamation action.

The underlying dispute arose from an email sent by the defendant, a neurologist, to the Minister of Health and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario requesting investigation into the plaintiff’s involvement in diagnosing and treating a controversial medical condition.

The motion judge had refused summary judgment largely on the basis that the plaintiff had delivered a jury notice and should have the opportunity to have issues such as malice determined by a jury.

The court held that the existence of a jury notice does not alter the test for summary judgment and that the motion judge erred by declining to determine the asserted defences of absolute privilege, qualified privilege, justification, and fair comment where the material facts were not in dispute.

Finding conflicting authority and good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and that the issue was of broader importance regarding the availability of summary judgment in defamation actions, the court granted leave to appeal.