[1] This is a judicial review of two decisions of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) deciding not to initiate inquiries into complaints submitted by the applicants.

[2] The basis of the Tribunal's decisions was that the applicants' objections to Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) were made beyond the time limits provided in subsection 6(2) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations, SOR/93-602. While the matter is not beyond doubt, I cannot say, on the basis of the record before the Tribunal, that its decision was patently unreasonable.

[3] Although there was conflicting documentation, the applicants' own submissions to the Tribunal indicated that the objections were made out of time. It was not patently unreasonable for the Tribunal to rely on these representations.

[4] The applicants also argued that they did not have a proper basis to object to PWGSC's decision until PWGSC rejected their bids. However, the Tribunal found that the objections were out of time because the applicants knew or should have known the basis of their objections more than 10 days before the objections were filed. This finding by the Tribunal was not patently unreasonable.

[5] In oral argument, there was considerable discussion as to the correct interpretation of subsections 6(3) and 6(4) of the Regulations as they applied to complaints of a systemic nature. It is arguable that, if an objection was made to PWGSC under subsection 6(2), subsections 6(3) and 6(4) would operate to extend the time for filing complaints with the Tribunal to 30 days after the potential supplier had actual or constructive knowledge of the denial of relief.

[6] Even if this interpretation is correct, however, the Tribunal's dismissal of the applicants' complaints was not patently unreasonable. Where an objection is made under subsection 6(2), the objection must be made within the time provided in that subsection. As I have found that the Tribunal's decisions that the applicants' objections to PWGSC were not filed within the time provided in subsection 6(2), the question of whether they might have met the time limits for filing complaints with the Tribunal under subsections 6(3) and 6(4) is moot.

[7] The applications for judicial review will be dismissed with one set of costs to the respondent to be shared by the applicants equally.

"Marshall Rothstein"

J.A.

"I agree

Gilles Létourneau J.A."

"I agree

J.D. Denis Pelletier"

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-544-03

STYLE OF CAUSE: ADVANCED BUSINESS INTERIORS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING: June 9, 2004

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Rothstein J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY: Létourneau J.A.

Pelletier J.A.

DATE: June 11, 2004

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Shawn J. O'Connor

FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. John S. Tyhurst

FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Kelly, Howard, Santini

Ottawa, Ontario

FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

FOR THE RESPONDENT

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-545-03

STYLE OF CAUSE: HAWORTH LTD. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING: June 9, 2004

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Rothstein J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY: Létourneau J.A.

Pelletier J.A.

DATED: June 11, 2004

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Shawn J. O'Connor

FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. John S. Tyhurst

FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Kelly, Howard, Santini

Ottawa, Ontario

FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

FOR THE RESPONDENT

You are here

Advanced Business Interiors v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FCA 230

Citations2004 FCA 230

Case tabs

Citations
2004 FCA 230