The plaintiff, an incumbent service provider, sued the defendant community care access centre for damages arising from a 2003 Request for Proposals (RFP) process.
The plaintiff alleged the procurement process was unfair, claiming the defendant was motivated by a desire to avoid severance costs, used undisclosed criteria, permitted a conflict of interest, unfairly customized the RFP, accepted a non-compliant bid, and conducted a flawed evaluation.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that while there were minor procedural irregularities, the defendant did not breach its duty of fairness.
The court concluded the defendant had no financial motive to disfavour the plaintiff, the evaluation criteria were transparent, and the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the evaluation process.
