1634584 Ontario Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)

1634584 Ontario Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge did not err in concluding the case was appropriate for summary judgment under the applicable SCC tests and that PWGSC acted within its discretion in declaring the first bids non-compliant and ordering a second tender; there was no duty to seek clarifications and the first process was fair, so the appellant, having not participated in the second tender, could not complain about the outcome.

Citation
2014 ONCA 465
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): 1634584 Ontario Inc.; Defendant (respondent): Attorney General of Canada
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Tendering, Procedural Fairness, Good Faith, Rule 20
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Public Procurement Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Tendering Procedural Fairness Good Faith Rule 20

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1634584 Ontario Inc.

Plaintiff (appellant)

Attorney General of Canada

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was appropriate under Rule 20 and applicable Supreme Court of Canada guidance
  2. 2 Whether PWGSC acted unfairly or in bad faith in declaring bids non-compliant and ordering a second tender
  3. 3 Whether PWGSC had an obligation to seek clarification of weaknesses in bids under the Invitation to Offer

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge did not err in concluding the case was appropriate for summary judgment under the applicable SCC tests and that PWGSC acted within its discretion in declaring the first bids non-compliant and ordering a second tender; there was no duty to seek clarifications and the first process was fair, so the appellant, having not participated in the second tender, could not complain about the outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Respondent entitled to costs of the appeal fixed at $2,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.