Michelle A. Wright

The applicant, 2708266 Ontario Inc. o/a Nelli Construction, sought damages after the respondent, the City of Toronto, improperly failed to award it "Contract B" following a Request for Tender (RFT) process.

The court previously found the City liable for failing to award the contract.

This endorsement addresses the effect of a broad limitation of liability clause (LL Clause) in the RFT.

Applying the three-pronged Tercon test, the court found the LL Clause applied to the circumstances, including post-bid conduct, and was broad enough to preclude liability for damages beyond the costs of preparing the bid.

The court also determined there was no explicit finding of a breach of the duty of good faith as per Wastech, and that public policy did not override the enforcement of the LL Clause.

Consequently, the City was not liable for damages beyond the bid preparation costs, though costs from the initial application were still payable to the applicant.

The applicant submitted the lowest bid for a City of Toronto sewer and watermain project.

The City disqualified the bid, concluding the applicant lacked the requisite corporate experience because its personnel's experience was gained at a different company.

The City then cancelled and reissued the tender.

The court found the applicant's bid was compliant, a Contract A was formed, and the City breached the contract by cancelling the tender without a valid basis.

However, the court noted the tender's broad limitation of liability clause might preclude expectation damages and requested further submissions on its enforceability, while awarding the applicant costs of the motion.

The applicant sought to reactivate and amend his human rights application against the Toronto Police Service following his acquittal on criminal charges.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application.

The Tribunal allowed amendments detailing the original allegations of discriminatory police treatment and an increased monetary claim, but denied proposed amendments regarding the applicant's experiences in detention and the conduct of Crown prosecutors, finding them outside the scope of the original application.

The City of Toronto sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion to quash a summons to examine a city councillor.

The underlying applications challenged a municipal by-law removing a licensing exemption for airport taxis, alleging bad faith.

The City argued that the intention of a legislative body cannot be established through the examination of a single councillor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision that the councillor's statements had an institutional quality that might reflect the intention of City Council.

The complainants challenged the respondent's policy of disclosing mental health apprehensions on police reference checks.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the complainants' request for a publication ban to anonymize their identities due to the highly personal nature of the information at issue.

The Tribunal also granted intervenor status to the Attorney General of Ontario to adduce expert evidence on the relevancy of such apprehensions to vulnerable sector checks.