NAC Constructors Ltd. v. Alberta Capital Region Wastewater Commission, 2006 ABCA 246 (CanLII)

  • August 25, 2006

Date: 2006-08-25 Docket: 0603-0047-AC MacFadyen O'Leary Berger JJA. | Link

In a dispute about the award of a contract after a request for proposals, the Defendant appealed an order to compel responses to three questions related to the advice and opinions provided by a consultant company (Earth Tech) it had retained to help with the evaluation of bids. The court agreed with the appellant, stating "The disputed evidence may comprise opinions and advice that relates to compliance of the Maple and NAC bids, the fundamental and determinative issues raised by the pleadings, and that evidence may be relevant to those issues in a broad sense. But it is not material to them within the Rules fixing the scope of examination for discovery. Resolution of the issues of compliance of the tenders does not depend in any way on the opinions and advice communicated by Earth Tech to the Commission. The disputed evidence cannot reasonably be expected to significantly assist in proving or disproving the issues of compliance. (para 17)