M. Wright

The defendants brought a pre-emptive motion to strike paragraphs 5 to 20 of the plaintiff's affidavit filed in response to a motion regarding an alleged breach of the deemed undertaking rule.

The plaintiff consented to striking paragraphs 7 to 11 and part of 19.

The court declined to strike the remaining paragraphs, finding they were not scandalous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and held that the judge hearing the substantive motion was in a better position to determine their admissibility.

The moving parties (defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim) brought a motion to vary a timetable order and extend the dismissal deadline of December 31, 2018.

The responding parties opposed the extension, arguing the action should be dismissed for delay.

The Master found that while the litigation delay was significant, all parties had previously acquiesced to the leisurely pace and the responding parties had suddenly changed their position without warning.

The motion was granted, allowing a final extension of the timetable.

The plaintiff, ASI Group Ltd., brought a summary judgment motion against the City of Toronto, alleging a breach of the duty of fairness.

ASI was the lowest compliant bidder for a diving services contract (RFQ#1), but the City cancelled RFQ#1 and re-tendered (RFQ#2), which was subsequently awarded to another bidder.

The City justified the cancellation by claiming the integrity of the tender process for RFQ#1 had been compromised due to the unavailability of previous inspection reports and facility drawings, and a competitive advantage held by bidders with prior experience.

The court found that the City had the contractual right to cancel RFQ#1 under a privilege clause and its Purchasing Bylaw.

It further determined that the unavailability of critical documents and the existing competitive advantage legitimately compromised the integrity of the tender process.

The court concluded that the City acted fairly and equally by cancelling and re-tendering the project, thereby not breaching its duty of fairness.

The motion for summary judgment on liability was dismissed, finding no liability on the City.