The city’s legal team countered that expert testimony proved the confidentiality agreement was central to the integrity of the competitive dialogue process itself.

Inzola’s attorneys added they believe the city had a contractual obligation to all RFP respondents to conduct the process fairly and equally, but instead applied the rules differently to the three companies bidding on the project.

“Not only did it have to be fair, it had to reasonably appear to be fair,” Inzola attorney Stuart Svonkin told the court, adding Inzola believes the city failed in both regards.

The argument for bias was rooted in email exchanges and committee meeting minutes between senior staff discussing and sometime disparaging Cutruzzola during the process. Inzola’s lawyers also highlighted evidence from two Brampton councillors — Grant Gibson and Elaine Moore — who testified they felt the process was biased against Inzola.

When it came to damages, lawyers for the plaintiff argued Inzola wasn’t guilty of the city’s stated RFP violations it was disqualified over, and was due any potential profits lost based partly on a legal concept called “loss of chance.”

Not surprisingly, the City took the polar opposite position and argued Inzola was due no damages at all. The city’s lawyers claimed Inzola was not only warned beforehand, but disqualified based on clearly stated violations of the RFP rules.

“What we have here are blatant breaches of the RFP,” City of Brampton laywer Adam Stephens said.

“Inzola did what it did with its eyes wide-open,” Stephens added. “It adopted a high-stakes approach despite repeated warnings from the city.”

A large part of both the city’s defence and Inzola’s allegations were grounded in contractual law, in particular, a legal principle called the “privilege clause” was a focus for both sides. It allows owners — in this case the City — to refuse all bids in a procurement process.

The city’s lawyers were steadfast that Inzola was in clear violation of the RFP rules, and while conceding to disparaging and questionable remarks made by senior staff, insisted such interactions were not evidence of bias.

“There was enough fairness and equality in the process, that the integrity of the process (was not compromised),” argued the defence.

City attorneys dismissed much of Inzola’s case as conspiracy, while also arguing previous case law did not support the remedy the plaintiff is seeking.

“This theory and these allegations are simply not supported by the trial evidence,” they argued.

Sproat indicated his decision would likely come in November or January.