Canada: Late Bid Not Compliant With Electronic Tender Call

Last Updated: August 12 2009
Most Read Contributor in Canada, September 2016

Article by Matthew R. Alter©, Partner
Construction, Engineering, Surety and Fidelity Group

Coco Paving (1990) v. Ontario (Transportation) (2009 Ont. C. of A.)

This is one of the first cases to address issues arising in the context of an electronic tendering process in Canada. Contractors and owners, alike, should, in determining bid compliance, take note of this decision and the Ontario Court of Appeal's emphasis on the importance of the bid closing deadline, and the specific provisions in an owner's tender instructions.


On June 19, 2009 the Ontario Court of Appeal, on an expedited appeal, overturned a declaratory order by Nolan J. of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, dated May 19, 2009 (amended May 25th), on the grounds that the lower court judge had misinterpreted the relevant provisions of a Ministry of Transportation for Ontario ("MTO") tender call and had erred in law.

The lower court decision had declared a bid by the applicant, Coco Paving (1990) Inc. ("Coco"), to be compliant with the terms of the MTO's tender call, despite the undisputed fact that it was submitted late – after the prescribed "Tender Closing" deadline. MTO had determined that the late Coco bid was non-compliant with the terms of the tender call and had, therefore, excluded it from consideration. Coco brought an application in the Superior Court of Justice to have its bid declared to be compliant on the basis that the timely receipt of its bid had been prevented by a computer system failure emanating from the MTO.

On the application, Nolan J. reasoned that the cause of Coco's late bid submission was a failure on the part of MTO to provide assistance to Coco when Coco was unable to submit its bid through the prescribed MTO electronic on-line bidding system. On appeal, that reasoning was rejected by a panel comprised of Cronk, Gillese and Armstrong JJ.A. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Coco's application, finding that Coco's bid was not compliant with MTO's prescribed terms for bid submissions. In making its ruling, the Court of Appeal applied accepted principles of tendering law and found that MTO's tender documents could not be construed to allow it to accept for consideration a bid submitted after the deadline specified in the tender call.

As a consequence of the Court of Appeal's decision, the Bot Group of companies ("Bot")1, which was a party intervenor on Coco's application, and the Appellants on the appeal, became the lowest compliant bidder — and has since been awarded the MTO road construction contract that was the subject of the Coco application.

Lower Court Ruling

On May 4, 2009, on short notice, Coco brought a motion for an interim injunction. That motion came before Ducharme J. and was adjourned to May 14th to be heard on a priority basis, as an application, with the relief sought changed from an injunction to a declaration. On May 5th, Coco commenced the application that was ultimately the subject of the appeal, seeking the following relief:

  • a declaration that the bid submitted by Coco was submitted in compliance with the terms prescribed in MTO's tender documents, and
  • a declaration that the MTO ought to accept the Coco bid and list the Coco bid on MTO's posted bidder's list (with the other three compliant bids).

Although Bot was not served with Coco's initial motion for injunctive relief, nor a party to the submissions for the adjournment, it was served with Coco's revised application materials and Bot's General Counsel attended at the return of the application before Nolan J., and obtained an order allowing Bot party intervenor status (an order that proved critical to Bot's ultimate success), but was not allowed to file any affidavit materials.

MTO's tender call required bids to be submitted electronically to an MTO website. The prescribed "Tender Closing" was April 29, 2009. The evidence on the application was that Coco, which was familiar with MTO's electronic tendering system, had experienced a problem submitting its bid before the submittal deadline. The evidence was not conclusive on why MTO was unable to receive Coco's bid electronically, as MTO was able to receive the bids of three other bidders, including Bot, before the Tender Closing deadline.

Coco's application ultimately came before Nolan J. on May 15th at Windsor, Ontario. Both MTO and Coco filed affidavits, but neither conducted any cross-examinations. On May 19th, Nolan J. granted the declaration sought by Coco, stating as follows:

I find that this is an appropriate case in which to make the declaration sought. In coming to this determination, the MTO is only directed to consider the Coco bid along with the other bids received by the MTO prior to 3 p.m. on April 29, 2009. This declaration does not interfere with the right of the MTO, found in Article 11.1 of the Instructions to Bidders, to not be required to accept any, including the lowest Bid.

Bot's Stay Motion to the Court of Appeal

MTO chose not to appeal Nolan J.'s judgment, so on May 24th, Bot – the otherwise lowest compliant bidder – in its capacity as a party intervenor, commenced an expedited appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal and on May 25th Bot brought a motion before a single judge of the Court of Appeal to stay the lower court's declaratory judgment pending the determination of the appeal. Since the tender irrevocability period was to expire 30 days from the Tender Closing date of April 29th, Bot sought to have the Court of Appeal hear the stay motion on or before May 28th. In the meantime, Bot and the other two bidders whose bids had been received by MTO before Tender Closing, wrote to MTO extending the irrevocability period for their bids for a further 30 days or until such time as the Court of Appeal could render a decision. Coco did not similarly extend its bid past the 30-day period from the Tender Closing.

Bot's stay motion came before Cronk J.A. on May 28th and in a brief endorsement released on May 28th at approximately 2:30 p.m, with further reasons subsequently released, her honour granted a stay of Nolan J.'s decision and ordered that an expedited appeal be heard by the Court of Appeal on June 18th. In reaching her decision, Cronk J.A. was satisfied that Bot had met all of the required criteria for a stay, namely: (i) that there were serious questions of law and issues to be determined on the appeal, (ii) that the denial of a stay would result in irreparable harm to Bot, and (iii) that the balance of convenience favoured the granting of a stay.

On the serious issue test, Cronk J.A. found, among other things, that the events giving rise to the litigation called into question the integrity of the MTO's electronic tender and bidding system.

On the irreparable harm test, Cronk J.A. accepted that if the stay was not granted, Bot would suffer irreparable harm as it could reasonably be anticipated that Coco, as the lowest bidder, would be awarded the contract, which the evidence showed was worth approximately $60 million. In support of its argument, and in response to Coco's contention that Bot's remedy, if any, was in damages, Bot referred to the following provision in MTO's Instructions to Bidders, by which MTO sought to immunize itself from damages:

"The Ministry shall not be liable for any costs, expenses, loss or damage incurred, sustained or suffered by any bidder prior, or subsequent to, or by reason of the acceptance or the nonacceptance by the [MTO] of any Tender, or by reason of any delay in the acceptance of a Tender, except as provided in the tender documents."

Bot also adduced evidence of MTO's reliance on the identical provision in its defence of a current Ontario Superior Court of Justice action by an unsuccessful bidder on another MTO tender. Cronk J.A. accepted Bot's argument, stating:

[20] If the requested stay is not granted, and Coco secures the Contract, irreparable harm to the Bot Group may well result. I note, in this regard, that an inability to collect damages if a stay is not granted was recognized in RJR-Macdonald at para. 64 as giving rise to irreparable harm.

On the balance of convenience issue, both MTO and Coco argued that timely performance of the construction project could be imperilled if MTO were delayed in awarding the Contract. However, Justice Cronk found the following considerations tipped the scales in favour of granting the stay in Bot's favour:

  1. notwithstanding MTO's affidavit evidence filed on the day of the motion identifying numerous alleged difficulties if the Contract was not awarded by May 28th, such difficulties were prospective possibilities only. Moreover, the record indicated that MTO had already twice agreed to extend the Contract award deadline, and as such, a stay order, for a short time, would simply result in a further extension of that deadline;
  2. Bot and the other 2 compliant bidders' agreement to make their bids irrevocable for an additional 30 days or such further time as may be required for the determination of the appeal, which undercut MTO's concerns over potential financial penalties to be shouldered by the successful bidder;
  3. Bot's willingness to expedite the appeal and argue it as soon as possible;
  4. the industry-wide concerns raised by the decision on Coco's application, and the importance of affording those concerns, beyond the litigants, to be assessed by the court; and
  5. finally, that a stay of the declaratory relief would not legally prevent MTO from awarding the Contract, although that might be the practical effect.

On the return of the motion for the stay and expedited appeal, the Ontario Road Builders Association ("ORBA") brought a motion to be allowed intervenor status on the appeal. ORBA's motion was adjourned to be heard by the Chief Justice, at which time it was granted.

Court of Appeal Decision

The expedited appeal was heard on June 18, 2009, with the Court of Appeal releasing its reasons on the following day. The Court set aside the decision of the court below and granted judgment dismissing Coco's application.

The Court of Appeal's reasons provide strong support for the sacrosanct nature of tender deadlines in the competitive tendering process, absent clearly expressed language to the contrary. In this regard, the Court held that the specific language in MTO's tender documents, that no bids received after the deadline would be accepted for consideration, was sufficient to preclude an implied basis for the acceptance of late bids. Referencing the decisions of the Alberta Queens Bench and Alberta Court of Appeal in NAC Constructors Ltd. v. Alberta (Capital Region Wastewater Commission), the Court of Appeal held that a general discretion provision in MTO's tender documents allowing it to "waive formalities" with respect to bid submissions could not be construed to allow MTO to accept late bids. Citing its decision in the Bradscot (MCL) Ltd. v. Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board case, the Court of Appeal stated:

[12] Moreover, the timing of bid delivery is not a mere formality in the tendering process. As emphasized by the appellants, bid closing time is sacrosanct in the competitive tendering process.

In support of these determinations, the Court emphasized the strong public policy considerations and the need for strict rules to prevent unfairness to other bidders and maintain confidence in the integrity of government bidding processes.

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal emphasized that the onus was on Coco, not MTO, to ensure that its bid was received on time. This was important because there was no conclusive evidence as to the cause of the electronic tendering difficulties. Accordingly, it was impossible to determine whether it was Coco or MTO's computer system at fault in frustrating the timely submission of Coco's bid, or alternately whether the bid was simply stalled in "cyberspace" or held up in an Internet "traffic jam". In these circumstances the Court of Appeal reasoned as follows:

[23] ...we agree with the Bot Group's submission that, unlike other bidders, Coco took a calculated risk in deciding to delay accessing the MTO electronic bidding system until [less than 30 minutes before the deadline for bid submission]. It was open to Coco, as it was to the other bidders, to submit its first bid well in advance of Tender Closing and to update it thereafter. Unlike the other bidders, Coco chose not to avail itself of this opportunity. ...

[25] As we have said, there is no evidence before us, nor any finding by the application judge, as to the origins of the computer difficulties experienced by Coco. Nor is there evidence of what happened to the bid that Coco attempted to send on-line before 3:00 p.m. It may simply have been lost or stalled in 'cyberspace'. In any event, on this record, it is speculative to conclude that Coco's bid entered MTO's information system before 3:00 p.m. Under the tender requirements, which repeatedly emphasized the time of the MTO's receipt of a bid, this was critical. Merely 'sending' a bid does not establish receipt by the MTO.

Finally, the Court of Appeal did not agree with the lower court Judge's finding that a provision in MTO's tender documents impliedly required MTO to render assistance to Coco when it was unable to submit its bid electronically, and that MTO's failure to have done so justified a declaration that Coco's bid was compliant. Section 4.6 of MTO's Instructions to Bidders, in part 4.0 "Electronic Bid Submission Procedures", read as follows:

4.6. Upon submitting an on-line Summary Bid Submission Form, bidders will receive an online receipt notifying that the Ministry has successfully received the Summary Bid Submission Form. Bidders not receiving an on-line receipt must contact the Ministry's Help Desk...

The Court of Appeal found that nothing in the foregoing section of the Instructions relieved against the stipulation that bids had to be received by MTO before the stated Tender Closing deadline.


As noted at the outset, Coco Paving is an important case for all participants in the tendering process. Its emphasis on the criticality of a specified bid closing deadline, in the absence of a clearly expressed overriding provision, is advantageous to all parties in ensuring fairness in the competitive tendering process. From a procedural standpoint, it is worth noting the approach adopted by the successful appellants, which was critical in the circumstances and involved:

  1. intervention by Bot, as the lowest compliant bidder, allowing it to initiate the appeal, when the tendering authority (MTO) elected not to do so;
  2. the immediate obtaining of a stay order, which effectively prevented MTO from awarding the Contract to Coco;
  3. the obtaining of an order for an expedited appeal, in combination with the voluntary extension of the bids of the compliant bidders, which assisted the single Judge of the Court of Appeal with her determination on the balance of convenience test for a stay; and
  4. the intervention of the relevant trade association (ORBA) to provide important context to the court in regards to the public policy consideration.


1 Christopher D. Bredt and Matthew R. Alter of the Toronto offices of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP were the lawyers of record at the Ontario Court of Appeal for the successful Appellant, The Bot Group.

About BLG

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.