Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Federal Court partly protected pricing and certain subcontractor information from ATIA disclosure, but allowed release of public subcontractor profiles and activity reports.
The court declared the City lacked jurisdiction to enter the First Supply Agreement, but found no procedural fairness breach and upheld the July 21, 2025 resolution.
The Court held the Tribunal erred by failing to address ADGA's specific allegation that substituted personnel lacked RFP mandatory qualifications; the application is allowed in part and remitted to the Tribunal to determine whether substitutions lacking mandatory requirements changed the procurement into something not contemplated by the RFP. The Tribunal's conclusion that PSPC's evaluation of ADGA's reference contract was reasonable is upheld under a deferential reasonableness standard.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed Summit Helicopters’ request for an interlocutory injunction to extend its Kamloops air ambulance contract pending a procurement re-evaluation.
The Court held that a signed July 4, 2021 bid form created a binding construction contract, rejected the defendants’ re-bid request, and awarded lost-profit damages.
The appeal is dismissed because the procurement claim was statute-barred under s.5 of the Limitations Act, 2002 (the appellant discovered or ought to have discovered the claim by March 2006); no Contract A existed between AECL and the appellant so AECL owed no duty of fairness; the Deloitte Report was privileged and inadmissible and could not be admitted through calling its author; the trial judge's reasons permitted meaningful appellate review; costs awards were within discretion.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Divisional Court misapplied the reasonableness standard by conducting a de novo review; the Director’s written decision was a reasonable exercise of administrative authority in light of the record and CETA obligations; Ontario’s internal bid dispute process complied with Article 19.17 of CETA and provided an adequate remedy, so the request for bids was not independently reviewable; therefore the application for judicial review was dismissed and costs awarded to Ontario.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal’s literal application of s.6 to bar the late complaint was reasonable; the applicant failed to seek the statutory 30‑day extension before the Tribunal and did not meet any narrow exception permitting fresh evidence or new issues on review, so the Federal Court of Appeal will not overturn the Tribunal’s decision.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal's conclusion that the substitute masters met MR 20 and would have received full points under RR 24 was unreasonable because there was no contemporaneous comparative evaluation or corroborative documentation required by RFP Article 7.46; after-the-fact affidavits did not cure the absence of evidence, so the Tribunal's finding was set aside and the complaint declared valid.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the CITT's dismissal of Larue's complaint because the CITT reasonably concluded PWGSC permissibly relied on the information provided by Fresia, the contested resistance factors were not required by the RFP and there was no procedural unfairness or other defect warranting substitution of the evaluators' judgment.
Source excerpt
Explore more
