Interpaving takes Greater Sudbury to court over contract ban

Interpavingsays itsattempts to collect on anunpaidbill of $233,000from the City of Greater Sudbury is one of the reasons it was banned from bidding on municipal contracts.

It's one of the allegations the company makes in a court challenge that claims the ban and the city bylaw it'sbased onare illegal. The ban wasbrought in this March following the death of a pedestrian on a downtown construction site last fall.

"The decision todisqualifyInterpavingwas made in bad faith and for an ulterior purpose," reads the company's notice of application for a judicial review, which also uses words like "invalid," "abuse" and "Draconian" to describe the city's actions.

In 2014,Interpavingfiled a lawsuit against the city for $233,000for extra work done on five contracts it claims it was never paid for.

That lawsuit is still on the booksand the company now claims this was cited as a reason why it was banned from bidding on any city jobs earlier this year, as the city's by-law Governing Procurement Policies and Procedures listing litigation against the city as reason to bar a contractor.

In asking the court for a judicial review,Interpavingargues this violates its right under provincial laws and the Charter of Rights to take a government to court.

The company claims in court documents that the city cited generalpoor performance and "a significant history of abusive behaviour and threatening conduct directed from Interpaving owners and employees towards City employees" going back to 2003in its decision.

ButInterpavingsays these were never raised in regular meetings with city officials and that the ban came without warning.

Thatban on municipal workwas brought in this March, several months after 58-year-old Cecile Paquettewas killed during therepavingof Elgin Street, part of the $14.6 million worth of city work the company did in 2015.

"On its face, the decision does not seek to protect the city and its finances, but instead, it seeks to create a scapegoat for a tragic accident and thereby minimize the city's own role and duties," Interpavingargues in the court documents.

The company alsoclaims the city's unfair decision has "tarnished" its reputation and had a "devastating impact" on its business.

City defends bylaw

In a statement the City of Greater says:

"The City has the authority to manage its relationships with contractors under the Purchasing By-law.

Assuch,InterpavingLimited was banned from submitting bids to the City under Section 37 of this by-law, whichallows the City to exclude a bidder or supplier for a number of reasons.

The City will be defending its decisionthrough the court process. As this is a legal matter, we cannot provide further comment."

This is just the latest legal proceeding tied to the crushing death on Elgin Street last year.

The provincial government has laid health and safety act charges against Interpaving and the city, set to be heard in court next week.

And the Paquette familyhas also filed a lawsuitagainst thecity and Interpaving for $2 millionin damages.