National Gallery of Canada v. Ace/cleardefense Inc.

National Gallery of Canada v. Ace/cleardefense Inc.

Applying the patently unreasonable standard, the Court held that it was open to the CITT to conclude that only an unforeseeable situation of urgency is relevant to determining the reasonableness of a bidding period under article 506(4); accordingly the CITT did not commit a reviewable error and the application was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2001 FCA 143
Parties
Applicant: NATIONAL GALLERY OF CANADA; Respondent: ACE/CLEARDEFENSE INC.
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal (judicial Review of Administrative Decision) / Final Judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Standard of Review, Agreement on Internal Trade Article 506(4), Reasonableness of Bidding Period, Urgency Exception
Source Language
en
Administrative Law International Trade Procurement Law Standard of Review Agreement on Internal Trade Article 506(4) Reasonableness of Bidding Period Urgency Exception

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NATIONAL GALLERY OF CANADA

Applicant

ACE/CLEARDEFENSE INC.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (judicial Review of Administrative Decision) / Final Judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the CITT committed reviewable error in its interpretation of article 506(4) of the Agreement on Internal Trade
  2. 2 Whether the correct standard of review (patently unreasonable) permits the CITT's finding that only unforeseeable urgency is relevant to the reasonableness of a bidding period

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the patently unreasonable standard, the Court held that it was open to the CITT to conclude that only an unforeseeable situation of urgency is relevant to determining the reasonableness of a bidding period under article 506(4); accordingly the CITT did not commit a reviewable error and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.