The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a procurement dispute arising from a waste haulage contract tender.
The plaintiff carrier alleged its bid was wrongly rejected as non‑compliant despite literal compliance with the tender terms and sought damages for lost profits.
The court held the motion record was inadequate and contained unresolved evidentiary conflicts regarding the interpretation of tender documents, the purpose of amendments to the request for quotation, and the municipality’s handling of clarification opportunities.
The court found that the summary judgment process would not provide a fair and just determination of the dispute.
A full trial was required in the interests of justice.