The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to extensive undertakings and refusals arising from discoveries in a municipal procurement action alleging biased disqualification, misleading of council, and improper favouring of the successful bidder.
The court imposed a staged timetable for outstanding undertakings, rejected the respondent's request for a lengthy extension, and held that certain questions said to require expert analysis instead sought fact evidence.
On refusals, the court required narrower questioning regarding the Integrity Commissioner's investigations, ordered production and answers concerning the final agreements with the successful bidder, and held that communications between municipal councillors and counsel were not protected by solicitor-client privilege solely because councillors were decision-makers.
Applying litigation privilege principles, the court required disclosure of non-privileged communications and particulars for any privilege claims, while resolving the remaining refusals on a question-by-question basis.
