Gaeten: Amicably resolve the situation with BAD without resorting to litigation; Initiate a thorough & independent investigation 0n how & why this occurred.

By Joseph Gaetan

July 10th, 2025

BURLINGTON, ON

Dear Mayor Meed Ward and Councillors,

The rejection of the Burlington Aquatic Devilrays’ (BAD) proposal appears to have occurred during the “initial screening” stage of the RFP evaluation process. This step determines whether submissions meet all mandatory requirements before they are considered further. Common mandatory elements typically include:

Proof of incorporation (non-profit or otherwise)

Signed submission forms, insurance certificates, bid bonds or securities submission by the specified deadline

Municipal procurement policies generally state that failure to meet any of these requirements results in automatic disqualification, with no discretion to reconsider. According to the City of Burlington’s Bids and Tenders website, “To be considered for evaluation,” bidders must meet three mandatory conditions, including the requirement that:
“Bids must include a current and valid certificate of incorporation as a Non-Profit or Not-for-Profit organization.”

“Bids not meeting the above mandatory requirements will be rejected.” (See Exhibit 1)

However, as per Service Ontario (Exhibits 2, 3, and 4), there is no such official designation or category issued by the province. This raises serious questions about the fairness and legal clarity of the procurement criteria used to disqualify BAD.

Beyond the legal and administrative questions lies a deeper concern: the impact on children and families. With about 400 members and more on a waiting list, BAD provides critical athletic and developmental opportunities. GHAC, by contrast, appears to be in the early stages of building a new membership base and seemingly dependent on swimmers migrating from BAD. As one councillor accurately stated, this is a zero-sum game. In this case, the children are the ones losing out—some may be left without a club, without coaching continuity, and without competitive prospects.

The City now finds itself in a difficult position. On one hand, staff have committed to an agreement with GHAC. On the other, BAD may have legitimate grounds to pursue legal remedy in Superior Court, especially if the procurement process was flawed or misunderstood. If there is a way for the City to resolve this issue proactively, more children, families, and residents will benefit than if this is left to be determined through litigation.

Some BAD families are already leaving the program due to the uncertainty, and delays in resolution only increase the harm. The City must move quickly to assess whether the current course of action can be modified in the public interest.

Key questions must still be answered, such as:

Was the process flawed in some respect in the first place?

Would awarding the contract to BAD have resulted in less disruption and harm? Will the GHAC model lead to higher costs for families?

Having reviewed this situation through the lens of the available facts, applicable case law, and the Bellamy Report’s recommendations on procurement transparency, I urge Council to:

1 Take all reasonable steps to amicably resolve the situation with BAD without resorting to litigation

2 Initiate a thorough and independent investigation into how and why this outcome occurred.

WE WOULD ADD TO THAT – KEEP THE PROCESS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Staff are expected to be transparent and accountable.

The residents of Burlington—and anyone considering doing business with the City—deserve a transparent and accountable procurement process. While some may hope this controversy fades away, it is in the public interest that it does not.

Sincerely,
Joseph A. Gaetan, BGS

Exhibit 1