Chapter IV - Procurement Inquiries
Introduction
Potential suppliers that believe that they may have been unfairly treated during a procurement solicitation covered by NAFTA, the AIT, the AGP, the CCFTA, the CPFTA, the CCOFTA, the CPAFTA, the CHFTA or the CKFTA, or any other applicable trade agreement, may file a complaint with the Tribunal. The relevant provisions of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations allow a complainant to first make an attempt to resolve the issue with the government institution responsible for the procurement before filing a complaint.
The Tribunal’s role is to determine whether the government institution followed the procurement procedures and other requirements specified in the applicable trade agreements.
When the Tribunal receives a complaint, it reviews it against the legislative criteria for filing. If there are deficiencies, the complainant is given an opportunity to correct them within the specified time limit. If the Tribunal decides to conduct an inquiry, the government institution is sent a formal notification of the complaint and a copy of the complaint itself. If the contract has been awarded, the government institution, in its acknowledgement of receipt of a complaint letter, provides the Tribunal with the name and address of the contract awardee. The Tribunal then sends a notification of the complaint to the contract awardee as a possible interested party. An official notice of the complaint is published in the Canada Gazette. If the contract in question has not been awarded, the Tribunal may order the government institution to postpone the award of any contract pending the disposition of the complaint by the Tribunal.
After receipt of its copy of the complaint, the relevant government institution files a response called the Government Institution Report. The complainant and any intervener are sent a copy of the response and given an opportunity to submit comments. Any comments received are forwarded to the government institution and other parties to the inquiry.
Copies of any other submissions or reports prepared during the inquiry are also circulated to all parties for their comments. Once this phase of the inquiry is completed, the Tribunal reviews the information on the record and decides if a public hearing is necessary or if the case can be decided on the basis of the information on the record.
The Tribunal then determines whether or not the complaint is valid. If it is, the Tribunal may make recommendations for remedies, such as re-tendering, re-evaluating or providing compensation to the complainant. The government institution, as well as all other parties and interested persons, is notified of the Tribunal’s decision. Recommendations made by the Tribunal should, by statute, be implemented to the greatest extent possible. The Tribunal may also award reasonable costs to the complainant or the responding government institution depending on the nature, circumstances and outcome of the case.
Procurement Complaints
Summary of Activities
| 2015-2016 | 2016-2017 | |
|---|---|---|
| Number of procurement complaints received | ||
| Carried over from previous fiscal year | 13 | 8 |
| Received in fiscal year | 70 | 70 |
| Total | 83 | 78 |
| Disposition—Complaints accepted for inquiry | ||
| Dismissed | 6 | - |
| Not valid | 14 | 7 |
| Valid or valid in part | 3 | 16 |
| Ceased | 2 | 6 |
| Withdrawn/abandoned | 2 | 3 |
| Subtotal | 27 | 32 |
| Disposition—Complaints not accepted for inquiry | ||
| Lack of jurisdiction/not a potential supplier | 6 | 3 |
| Late filing | 10 | 8 |
| Not a designated contract/no reasonable indication of a breach/premature | 30 | 22 |
| Withdrawn/abandoned | 2 | 4 |
| Subtotal | 48 | 37 |
| Outstanding at end of fiscal year | 8 | 9 |
| Decisions to initiate | 24 | 32 |
| Remanded cases | - | - |
Summary of Selected Determinations
During the fiscal year, the Tribunal issued 65 decisions on whether to accept complaints for inquiry and 29 final decisions on complaints that were accepted for inquiry, for a total of 94 decisions. Nine cases were still in progress at the end of the fiscal year, two of which was still under consideration for being accepted for inquiry.
Of the complaints investigated by the Tribunal in carrying out its procurement inquiry functions, certain decisions stand out because of their legal significance. Brief summaries of a representative sample of these cases are included below. These summaries have been prepared for general information purposes only.
PR-2015-070—M.D. Charlton Co. Ltd. and PR-2016-043—Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co.
M.D. Charlton Co. Ltd. (M.D. Charlton) filed a complaint with the Tribunal with regard to a Request for Standing Offer (RFSO) by the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) on behalf of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) for the provision of night vision binoculars.
M.D. Charlton argued that the national security exception (NSE) was improperly invoked to remove the procurement process from the disciplines of the trade agreements. M.D. Charlton also alleged that the solicitation requirements favoured a specific supplier.
PWGSC filed a motion to dismiss submitting that, as the procurement at issue was subject to an NSE, the complaint does not concern a “designated contract”, a jurisdictional requirement for the Tribunal.
As it had stated previously, the Tribunal reiterated that the trade agreements leave the identification of the national security interest to the sole discretion of the responsible government institution; however, the government institution may exclude the disciplines only to the extent necessary for the protection of the national security interest identified.
On that basis, the Tribunal found that PWGSC had improperly invoked the NSE to exclude all the disciplines of the trade agreements even though the only concern the RCMP had raised was that the technical specifications of the binoculars not be disclosed.
On the merits, the Tribunal found the complaint valid because the technical specifications in the Request for Standing Offer required bidders to provide the products of either of two specific suppliers; yet, some of the mandatory requirements could only be met by one supplier, and no provision allowed suppliers to propose equivalent products. Further, PWGSC offered no justification for these specifications, and some documentary evidence supported the claim that the RCMP had a preferred supplier.
The Request for Proposal (RFP) at issue in Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co. (File No. PR-2016-043) was issued by Shared Services Canada (SSC) for the provision of a supercomputer and also concerned a national security exception. Hewlett-Packard alleged that an improper evaluation had occurred. SSC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for almost identical reasons as those that had been in issue in File No. PR-2015-070 (M.D. Charlton Co. Ltd.), arguing similarly that the NSE should force the Tribunal to cease its inquiry. The Tribunal dismissed SSC’s motion, holding that SSC had failed to discharge, as required by the Agreement on Internal Trade, the burden to prove why access to the Tribunal’s bid challenge mechanism should be denied on grounds of national security or why SSC should not be held accountable for respecting its published tender documents. Hewlett-Packard’s grounds of complaint were, however, dismissed.
PR-2016-001—The Access Information Agency Inc.
In this procurement inquiry, The Access Information Agency Inc. (AIA) filed a complaint with regard to a request for availability (RFA) pursuant to a standing offer for temporary help relating to access to information and privacy. AIA alleged that its bid was not evaluated according to the criteria of the RFA, that Global Affairs Canada (GAC) failed to provide AIA with explanations regarding the relative advantages of the winning bid, and that GAC was not entitled to cancel the RFA.
In response to the complaint, GAC filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. According to GAC, the complaint did not relate to a “designated contract” because GAC cancelled the solicitation process before the Tribunal began its inquiry
In reviewing the motion, the Tribunal stated that the expression “designated contract” is defined in section 30.1 of the CITT Act and includes both contracts which have been or are proposed to be awarded. The Tribunal found that its jurisdiction crystallized at the moment the contract was awarded, and that the subsequent cancellation of the contract did not extinguish the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Moreover, since the purpose of the regulatory regime under the CITT Act is to ensure that the procurement process is fair, competitive, efficient and conducted with integrity, the cancellation of the process falls within this mandate.
In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal clarified that it will not necessarily commence or continue an inquiry in every case where the solicitation was cancelled. Rather, the Tribunal will still exercise its discretion and determine if the cancellation renders the complaint frivolous or vexatious.
In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal clarified that it will not necessarily commence or continue an inquiry in every case where the solicitation was cancelled. Rather, the Tribunal will still exercise its discretion and determine if the cancellation renders the complaint frivolous or vexatious.
On the merits of the complaint, the Tribunal found that GAC breached the AIT by evaluating AIA’s proposal in a way that did not comply with the criteria set out in the RFA. However, the Tribunal also found that, unlike other trade agreements, the AIT does not contain any obligation for the government institution to provide information on the relative advantages of the winning bid. The Tribunal added that the practice of providing debriefings is nevertheless encouraged in order to enhance transparency. The Tribunal also found that, because the AIT does not prohibit the cancellation of a contract, GAC was therefore entitled to do so.
AIA and GAC each filed an application for judicial review of this decision to the Federal Court of Appeal, which is currently pending.
PR-2016-018—Lincoln Landscaping Inc.
Lincoln Landscaping Inc. (Lincoln) filed a complaint with regard to an Invitation to Tender (ITT) for the provision of snow and ice control, and grass cutting and landscape maintenance services.
Lincoln alleged that PWGSC breached the provisions of NAFTA by improperly entering into a contract for the services set out in the ITT with a third party who had not participated in the competitive process, by disclosing Lincoln’s confidential pricing information to a third-party competitor, and by improperly cancelling the solicitation.
PWGSC submitted a motion requesting that the complaint be dismissed on the grounds that the cancellation of the solicitation had vacated the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In the alternative, PWGSC argued that the complaint was rendered trivial given the cancellation.
The Tribunal rejected the first argument, noting that a designated contract existed when the Tribunal commenced the inquiry. The Tribunal found that its jurisdiction is not nullified by the subsequent cancellation of the solicitation. Nor did the cancellation render the complaint trivial. The Tribunal noted that none of the breaches alleged by Lincoln were remedied by the cancellation of the process. Indeed, whether or not PWGSC acted properly in cancelling the contract was a central question to be determined.
With respect to the first ground of complaint, the Tribunal found that PWGSC breached the provisions of NAFTA by entering into contract with a third party without issuing a competitive bidding process. Although PWGSC argued that the work was done via call-ups under a pre-existing Standing Offer (SO), the Tribunal determined that the SO in question was for entirely different services than those required under the ITT.
The Tribunal also concluded that PWGSC breached the provisions of NAFTA by improperly disclosing Lincoln’s confidential pricing information to a third-party competitor.
In regards to the final ground of complaint, the Tribunal referred to Article 1015(4)(c) of NAFTA, which requires that an entity shall award a contract unless it decides in the public interest not to do so. The Tribunal did not accept PWGSC’s argument that it was in the public interest to not award the contract because Lincoln’s price was “excessive”. The Tribunal found that not only did the ITT not contain any maximum price provision, but the prices PWGSC paid to the third-party entity it contracted to do the work were actually higher than those proposed by Lincoln. Moreover, PWGSC refused to disclose the cost estimate to Lincoln despite the latter specifically asking for it. The Tribunal held that these actions did not support PWGSC’s contention that the cost estimate was clearly intended to be an integral part of the evaluation process.
Given that Lincoln fully complied with the requirements of the ITT, and that PWGSC had not established a valid public interest rationale for cancelling the contract, the Tribunal found that PWGSC breached NAFTA by cancelling the solicitation and refusing to award the contract to Lincoln.
PWGSC initially submitted an application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s determination, but that application was subsequently discontinued.
PR-2016-031—Medi+Sure Canada Inc.
In this procurement inquiry, Medi+Sure Canada Inc. (Medi+Sure) filed a complaint with regard to a solicitation for the provision of diabetic test strips and glucometers.
The Request for Proposal (RFP) stated that the resulting contract would be awarded to the bidder who submitted the lowest-priced, compliant proposal. The contract was initially awarded to Felix Technology Inc. (Felix) as the lowest-priced compliant bidder; however, PWGSC and Felix terminated the contract by mutual consent. Medi+Sure argued that Felix’s proposal should not have been deemed compliant. While PWGSC proposed to cancel and reissue the solicitation, Medi+Sure argued that, as the remaining lowest-priced compliant bidder, it should be awarded the contract.
PWGSC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the cancellation of the contract with Felix meant that there was no “designated contract”, and that the Tribunal, therefore, did not have jurisdiction. In addition, PWGSC contended that it could not award the contract to Medi+Sure, since the RFP contained a 90-day expiration period on bids.
In rejecting PWGSC’s motion, the Tribunal noted that notwithstanding the cancellation of the contract with Felix, the grounds of the complaint remained relevant. The cancellation of the solicitation did not nullify Medi+Sure’s contention that it should have been awarded the contract from the start, since Felix’s bid was not compliant with the requirements of the RFP. In addition, Article 1015(4)(c) of NAFTA required that a contract be awarded unless there was a public interest exception. PWGSC had not cited any public interest exception, and therefore the obligation to award the contract remained.
The Tribunal also found that the complaint was not rendered trivial by the expiration of the 90-day open-offer period for bid prices required by the RFP. The Tribunal held that the clause does not prevent PWGSC from remedying a breach of a trade agreement, even when it has already made an award within the bidding period.
On the substantive grounds of the complaint, the Tribunal found that Felix’s bid had not been evaluated in accordance with the criteria set out in the RFP. The Tribunal held that, but for this error, Medi+Sure would have been awarded the contract, as it was the lowest-priced, fully compliant bid. While cancelling the contract with Felix and relaunching the solicitation ameliorated the breach somewhat, a retendering would impose delays and expenses on Medi+Sure. Although Medi+Sure’s pricing had expired under the RFP and Medi+Sure was not contractually obligated to offer the product at the prices listed in its bid, the Tribunal found that the prejudice Medi+Sure suffered would be fully ameliorated if Medi+Sure were awarded the contract at the price listed in its bid.
PWGSC initially filed an application for judicial review of this case, but that application was subsequently discontinued.
PR-2016-035—Agence Gravel Inc.
In this procurement inquiry, Agence Gravel Inc. (Agence Gravel) filed a complaint with regard to an RFSO for the provision of firearm suppressors.
Prior to the complaint being brought, PWGSC announced that it had cancelled the solicitation prior to contract award because the bid validity period had expired without the evaluation being completed. Agence Gravel argued that this cancellation was contrary to the provisions of the solicitation and was a breach of PWGSC’s obligations under the trade agreements.
PWGSC filed a motion asking the Tribunal to end the inquiry as the cancellation of the solicitation meant that there was no “designated contract”, and that the Tribunal, therefore, did not have jurisdiction.
The Tribunal denied PWGSC’s motion, noting that the term “designated contract” as defined in section 30.1 of the CITT Act included both a contract that had been awarded and one that is proposed to be awarded. Given that the cancellation of a solicitation is an integral aspect of the procurement process, and that it is precisely the cancellation of the process which was at issue, the Tribunal found that its mandate under the CITT Act required it to determine whether the process was conducted in accordance with the relevant trade agreements.
With respect to PWGSC’s rationale for cancelling the solicitation, the Tribunal found that PWGSC allowed the bid validity period to expire through a series of errors and delays of its own making. The Tribunal stated that there is a reasonable expectation that the government institution would consider bids on their merits and would not allow them to expire through its own lack of reasonable diligence. The evidence before the Tribunal demonstrated that PWGSC did not show reasonable diligence in the management of the RFSO.
While the RFSO did contain a privilege clause which stated that PWGSC could cancel the solicitation at any time, the Tribunal stated that this must be read in the context of the RFSO and under the regime of the AIT, which requires fair and equal treatment of bidders. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that cases where the right to cancel a solicitation would be appropriate normally include situations in which unforeseen circumstances have arisen. The Tribunal found that the cancellation of the solicitation was not due to an unforeseen circumstance, but was the result of a lack of diligence on the part of PWGSC in its procedures.
The Tribunal found that by cancelling the solicitation, PWGSC had breached its obligations under the trade agreements. The Tribunal recommended that PWGSC complete the evaluation process and award the standing offer to the successful bidder.
PWGSC filed an application for judicial review, which is pending.
PR-2016-035—Agence Gravel Inc.
TPG Technology Consulting Ltd. (TPG) filed a complaint with the Tribunal regarding an RFP for engineering and technical support services issued by PWGSC in 2006, over ten years ago. In 2008, TPG had brought an action for damages at the Federal Court, which ultimately denied the claim. That decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal. TPG claimed that because the Federal Court found that PWGSC had unfairly evaluated TPG’s bid on 2 out of 217 criteria, TPG had established prejudice to the integrity and efficiency of the procurement system and was entitled to monetary compensation, even though the courts found that TPG had not proven that, but for PWGSC’s errors, it would have been the successful bidder on the RFP.
The Tribunal found the complaint untimely, as the facts in support of TPG’s complaint became known to it either before it began its action in 2008 or, at the latest, during the course of the trial, which took place in 2014. The Tribunal also found that the complaint was res judicata because TPG had already received a final decision on the merits at the Federal Court of Appeal.
Disposition of Procurement Complaints
| File No. | Complainant | Status/Decision |
|---|---|---|
| PR-2015-043 | StenoTran Services Inc. and Atchison & Denman Court Reporting Services Ltd. | Decision issued on April 15, 2016 Complaint valid |
| PR-2015-047 | Madsen Power Systems Inc. | Decision issued on April 29, 2016 Complaint not valid |
| PR-2015-051 | Oshkosh Defence Canada Incorporated | Decision issued on May 20, 2016 Complaint valid in part |
| PR-2015-058 | Jaura Entreprises | Decision issued on June 9, 2016 Complaint not valid |
| PR-2015-060 | HDT Expeditionary Systems, Inc. | Decision issued on July 6, 2016 Complaint not valid |
| PR-2015-064 | MasterBedroom Inc. | Decision issued on May 26, 2016 Complaint valid |
| PR-2015-067 | Oshkosh Defence Canada Incorporated | Decision issued on May 20, 2016 Complaint valid in part |
| PR-2015-070 | M.D. Charlton Co. Ltd. | Decision issued on August 10, 2016 Complaint valid |
| PR-2016-001 | The Access Information Agency Inc. | Decision issued on August 19, 2016 Complaint valid in part |
| PR-2016-002 | Promaxix Systems Inc. | Complaint abandoned on April 26, 2016 |
| PR-2016-003 | Francis H.V.A.C. Services Ltd. | Decision issued on September 2, 2016 Complaint not valid |
| PR-2016-004 | Solutions Moerae Inc. | Decision issued on September 12, 2016 Complaint valid in part |
| PR-2016-005 | Blue White Translation Ltd. | Inquiry ceased on July 21, 2016 |
| PR-2016-006 | TYR Tactical Canada, ULC | Decision made on May 13, 2016 Late filing |
| PR-2016-007 | MD Charlton Co. Ltd. | Decision made on May 13, 2016 No reasonable indication of a breach |
| PR-2016-008 | Jastram Technologies Ltd. | Decision made on May 24, 2016 Not a designated contract |
| PR-2016-009 | HeartZap Services Inc. | Decision made on May 13, 2016 No reasonable indication of a breach |
| PR-2016-010 | Cision Canada Inc. | Decision made on May 30, 2016 Not a designated contract |
| PR-2016-011 | Futura Workwear Safety Tech. Inc. | Decision made on June 7, 2016 Late filing |
| PR-2016-012 | Otec Solutions Inc. | Decision issued on October 5, 2016 Complaint not valid |
| PR-2016-013 | Unisource Technology Inc. | Inquiry ceased on August 23, 2016 |
| PR-2016-014 | CAMEC Joint Venture | Decision made on October 7, 2016 Complaint valid in part |
| PR-2016-015 | Telecore | Decision made on June 15, 2016 Not a designated contract |
| PR-2016-016 | The Access Information Agency Inc. | Complaint withdrawn on June 30, 2016 |
| PR-2016-017 | Vurtur Communication Group | Complaint abandoned on July 18, 2016 |
| PR-2016-018 | Lincoln Landscaping Inc. | Decision issued on November 16, 2016 Complaint valid |
| PR-2016-019 | M.D. Charlton Co. Ltd. | Decision made on July 6, 2016 Complaint premature |
| PR-2016-020 | Canadian Maritime Engineering Ltd. | Decision issued on September 8, 2016 Inquiry ceased |
| PR-2016-021 | Springcrest Inc. | Decision issued on November 21, 2016 Complaint valid |
| PR-2016-022 | CartoVista Inc. | Decision made on July 14, 2016 Complaint premature |
| PR-2016-023 | Vurtur Communication Group Inc. (Open plus) | Decision made on July 26, 2016 Not a potential supplier |
| PR-2016-024 | ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp. (ADRMTEC) | Decision issued on December 16, 2016 Complaint valid in part |
| PR-2016-025 | Solutions Serafin Inc. | Decision made on August 9, 2016 Late filing |
| PR-2016-026 | Caduceon Environmental Laboratories | Decision issued on October 26, 2016 Inquiry ceased |
| PR-2016-027 | M.D. Charlton Co. Ltd. | Decision made on December 16, 2016 Complaint not valid |
| PR-2016-028 | Masterbedroom Inc. | Decision made on August 25, 2016 Not a designated contract |
| PR-2016-029 | Construction Longer Inc. | Decision made on August 24, 2016 Complaint premature |
| PR-2016-030 | L.P. Royer Inc. | Decision issued on January 10, 2017 Complaint valid |
| PR-2016-031 | Medi+Sure Canada Inc. | Decision issued on January 27, 2017 Complaint valid |
| PR-2016-032 | Masterbedroom Inc. | Decision made on September 14, 2016 Not a designated contract |
| PR-2016-033 | HeartZAP Services Inc. | Decision made on September 13, 2016 No reasonable indication of a breach |
| PR-2016-034 | Bravo Zulu Productions Inc. | Complaint withdrawn on October 20, 2016 |
| PR-2016-035 | Agence Gravel Inc. | Decision issued on January 26, 2017 Complaint valid |
| PR-2016-036 | NATTIQ | Complaint withdrawn on November 9, 2016 |
| PR-2016-037 | Masterbedroom Inc. | Decision made on October 11, 2016 No jurisdiction |
| PR-2016-039 | Telecore | Decision made on October 27, 2016 Late filing |
| PR-2016-040 | R2Sonic LLC | Decision made on October 27, 2016 No reasonable indication of breach |
| PR-2016-041 | The Masha Krupp Translation Group Ltd. | Decision issued on March 15, 2017 Complaint valid in part |
| PR-2016-042 | Colliers Project Leaders, Tiree Facility Solutions Inc. | Decision issued on March 2, 2017 Complaint valid |
| PR-2016-043 | Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co. | Decision issued on March 20, 2017 Complaint valid |
| PR-2016-044 | Rebanks Pepper Littlewood Architects Inc. | Decision made on November 23, 2016 No reasonable indication of breach |
| PR-2016-045 | TPG Technology Consulting Ltd. | Decision made on November 30, 2016 Late filing |
| PR-2016-046 | Marine International Dragage (M.I.D.) Inc. | Decision made on December 12, 2016 Complaint premature |
| PR-2016-047 | HDP Group Inc. | Decision made on December 28, 2016 No reasonable indication of breach |
| PR-2016-048 | TPG Technology Consulting Ltd. | Decision made on December 29, 2016 No reasonable indication of breach |
| PR-2016-049 | StenoTran Services Inc. | Decision made on January 23, 2017 No reasonable indication of breach |
| PR-2016-050 | Les Gestions Jacques Delaney Inc. | Decision made on January 20, 2017 Late filing |
| PR-2016-051 | Marine International Dragage (M.I.D.) Inc. | Decision made on March 13, 2017 Inquiry ceased |
| PR-2016-052 | Paystation Inc. | Decision made on February 1, 2017 Complaint premature |
| PR-2016-053 | Weinmann Limited | Decision made on February 3, 2017 Not a designated contract |
| PR-2016-054 | Systematix IT Solutions | Complaint abandoned on February 21, 2017 |
| PR-2016-055 | Marine International Dragage (M.I.D.) Inc. | Decision made on March 13, 2017 Inquiry ceased |
| PR-2016-056 | ValcomConsulting Group | Accepted for inquiry–In progress |
| PR-2016-057 | Anton Parr | Complaint abandoned on March 8, 2017 |
| PR-2016-058 | Bronson Consulting | Accepted for inquiry–In progress |
| PR-2016-059 | M.D. Charlton Co. Ltd. | Decision made on February 24, 2017 Complaint premature |
| PR-2016-060 | CRAFM Inc. | Decision made on March 8, 2017 No reasonable indication of breach |
| PR-2016-061 | 398 3200 Canada Inc. (Apogée) | Decision made on March 8, 2017 Late filing |
| PR-2016-062 | Slenke Inc. | Accepted for inquiry–In progress |
| PR-2016-063 | 812502 Ontrion Inc. d/b/a Action Meals | Decision made on March 14, 2017 Late filing |
| PR-2016-064 | Leonardo S.p.A. | Accepted for inquiry–In progress |
| PR-2016-065 | D4Is Solutions Inc. | Accepted for inquiry–In progress |
| PR-2016-066 | Pauli Systems Inc. | Accepted for inquiry–In progress |
| PR-2016-067 | Joli Distributions Inc. | Under consideration |
| PR-2016-068 | Yeva Vision | Decision made on March 29, 2017 Complaint premature |
| PR-2016-069 | Deloitte Inc. | Accepted for inquiry–In progress |
| PR-2016-070 | Park Air | Under consideration |
Judicial Review of Procurement Decisions
Decisions Appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal
| File No. | Complainant Before the Tribunal | Applicant Before the Federal Court of Appeal | Court File No./Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| PR-2014-067 | Heddle Marine Services Inc. | Heddle Marine Services Inc. | A-236-15 Application withdrawn January 11, 2017 |
| PR-2014-053 | Monroe Solutions Group Inc. | Monroe Solutions Group Inc. | A-321-15 Application dismissed November 10, 2017 |
| PR-2014-054 and PR-2014-056 | Monroe Solutions Group Inc. | Monroe Solutions Group Inc. | A-323-15 Application dismissed November 10, 2016 |
| PR-2015-051 and PR-2015-067 | Oshkosh Defense Canada | Attorney General of Canada | A-219-16 In progress |
| PR-2015-051 and PR-2015-067 | Oshkosh Defense Canada | Oshkosh Defense Canada | A-220-16 In progress |
| PR-2015-064 | Masterbedroom Inc. | Charley’s Furniture | A-248-16 Application withdrawn August 15, 2016 |
| PR-2015-060 | HDT Expeditionary Systems Inc. | HDT Expeditionary Systems Inc. | A-277-16 In progress |
| PR-2016-001 | The Access Information Agency Inc. | The Access Information Agency Inc. | A-323-16 In progress |
| PR-2016-001 | The Access Information Agency Inc. | Attorney General of Canada | A-329-16 In progress |
| PR-2015-070 | M.D. Charlton Co. Ltd. | M.D. Charlton Co. Ltd. | A-310-16 Application withdrawn September 27, 2016 |
| PR-2016-003 | Francis H.V.A.C. Services Ltd. | Francis H.V.A.C. Services Ltd. | A-356-16 In progress |
| PR-2016-018 | Lincoln Landscaping Ltd. | Attorney General of Canada | A-388-16 Application discontinued December 5, 2016 |
| PR-2016-021 | Springcrest Inc. | Attorney General of Canada | A-462-16 In progress |
| PR-2016-027 | M.D. Charlton Co. Ltd. | Attorney General of Canada | A-21-17 In progress |
| PR-2016-030 | L.P. Royer Inc. | Attorney General of Canada | A-45-17 In progress |
| PR-2016-035 | Agence Gravel Inc. | Attorney General of Canada | A-66-17 In progress |
| PR-2016-031 | Medi+Sure Canada Inc. | Attorney General of Canada | A-56-17 Application discontinued March 22, 2017 |
| Note: The Tribunal has made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information listed is complete. However, since the Tribunal usually does not participate in appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal Court, it is unable to confirm that the list contains all appeals or decisions rendered that were before the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. | |||