Date: 20091021
Dockets: A-343-07
A-166-09
Citation:
2009 FCA 304
CORAM: BLAIS C.J.
SHARLOW J.A.
LAYDEN-STEVENSON
J.A.
BETWEEN: Docket:
A-343-07
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
LES SYSTÈMES EQUINOX INC.
Respondent
and
LGS
GROUP INC.
Intervener
BETWEEN: Docket:
A-166-09
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
Applicant
and
LES
SYSTÈMES EQUINOX INC.
Respondent
Heard
at Ottawa, Ontario, on October
21, 2009.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on October
21, 2009.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
BY: BLAIS C.J.
Date: 20091021
Dockets: A-343-07
A-166-09
Citation:
2009 FCA 304
CORAM: BLAIS C.J.
SHARLOW J.A.
LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A.
BETWEEN: Docket:
A-343-07
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
LES SYSTÈMES EQUINOX INC.
Respondent
and
LGS
GROUP INC.
Intervener
BETWEEN: Docket:
A-166-09
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
Applicant
and
LES SYSTÈMES
EQUINOX INC.
Respondent
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered
from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario,
on October 21, 2009)
BLAIS C.J.
[1]
The Crown has applied for judicial review of two decisions of the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal. In the first application (A-343-07), the
Crown submits that the decision of the Tribunal dated June 20, 2007 is
unreasonable insofar as it concludes that the bid of LGS Group Inc. was not
compliant and that LGS Group Inc. was permitted to repair its bid. In the
second application (A-166-09), the Crown submits that the Tribunal erred in law
in concluding, in its decision dated March 12, 2009, that there was a
reasonable apprehension of bias in the evaluation of the bids.
[2]
The Crown’s submissions on all of these issues are based on arguments
challenging the Tribunal’s understanding of the bidding process as disclosed in
the documents in the record, and the probative value of those documents. The
Crown’s explanations of the documents that were presented in this Court were
before the Tribunal, but those explanations were rejected, substantially on factual
grounds. In our view, all of the conclusions challenged by the Crown were
findings of fact that were reasonably open to the Tribunal, given the evidence
before it.
[3]
We note that the Tribunal was influenced substantially by the apparent
inability of the Crown to produce evidence explaining certain aspects of the
evaluation process, and in a number of instances drew inferences adverse to the
Crown on the basis of the absence of evidence. In our view, the Tribunal’s
concern about the lack of documentation was reasonable, and the adverse
inferences were justified.
[4]
We are not persuaded that the Tribunal made any error of law or any
other error that warrants the intervention of this Court. These applications
will be dismissed with costs.
[5]
A copy of these reasons will be placed in each of the files, A-343-07
and A-166-09.
“Pierre Blais”
FEDERAL COURT
OF APPEAL
NAMES OF
COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKETS: A-343-07
& A-166-09
STYLE OF
CAUSE: AGC and
Les Systèmes Equinox Inc. and LGS Group Inc. (A-343-07)
AGC
and Les Systèmes Equinox Inc. (A-166-09)
PLACE OF
HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF
HEARING: October 21, 2009
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: BLAIS C.J.
SHARLOW
J.A.
LAYDEN-STEVENSON
J.A.
DELIVERED
FROM THE BENCH BY: BLAIS C.J.
APPEARANCES:
|
David M. Attwater
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Gordon LaFortune
Not present
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
FOR THE INTERVENER
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
David M. Attwater
Barrister and Solicitor
Ottawa, Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Gordon LaFortune
Barrister and Solicitor
Ottawa, Ontario
Gowlings Lafleur Henderson LLP
Ottawa, Ontario
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
FOR THE INTERVENER
|
Email this Content