Canada (Attorney General) v. Envoy Relocation Services

Canada (Attorney General) v. Envoy Relocation Services
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2006-01-11
Neutral citation
2006 FCA 13
File numbers
A-286-05
Decision Content
Date: 20060111
Docket: A-286-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 13
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
NOËL J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
ENVOY RELOCATION SERVICES
and ROYAL LEPAGE RELOCATION SERVICES LIMITED
Respondents
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 11, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 11, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A.
Date: 20060111
Docket: A-286-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 13
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
NOËL J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
ENVOY RELOCATION SERVICES
and ROYAL LEPAGE RELOCATION SERVICES LIMITED
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 11, 2006)
NOËL J.A.
[1] We have not been persuaded that the interpretation adopted by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the "Tribunal") of the relevant terms of the Requirement for Proposal ("RFP") is patently unreasonable. The Tribunal's conclusion that there was an error in the evaluation of the bids submitted by Envoy Relocation Services ("Envoy"), because they were compared to each other, must therefore stand.
[2] However, we are satisfied that the remedy granted by the Tribunal cannot stand. It was not open to the Tribunal to order a re-evaluation of all bids with respect to section 2.2.4.2 of Annex "D" to the RFP because the complaint related only to an alleged error in the evaluation of Envoy's bids, and there is no evidence or suggestion that the same error occurred or might have occurred with respect to the other bids. Therefore, this matter must be remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the remedy.
[3] In that regard, the record establishes that simply re-evaluating Envoy's bids with respect to section 2.2.4.2 cannot possibly affect the outcome of the bidding process. Therefore, the scope of the remedy must be limited to the monetary relief sought by Envoy in its complaint.
[4] Accordingly, the application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision of the Tribunal will be set aside, and the matter will be returned for redetermination in accordance with these reasons. No costs will be ordered as between Envoy and the Attorney General given the divided result. However, Royal Lepage shall have its costs fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements.
"Marc Noël"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-286-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v. ENVOY RELOCATION SERVICES and ROYAL LePAGE RELOCATION SERVICES LIMITED
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: January 11, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: Rothstein J.A.
Noël J.A.
Sharlow J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Noël J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Derek Rasmussen FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Ronald Lunau FOR THE RESPONDENT
Ms. Catherine Beaudoin ENVOY RELOCATION SERVICES
Mr. Donald Affleck FOR THE RESPONDENT
Ms. Angela Yadav ROYAL LePAGE RELOCATION SERVICES LIMITED
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE APPLICANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson LLP FOR THE RESPONDENT
Ottawa, Ontario ENVOY RELOCATION SERVICES
Affleck, Greene, Orr FOR THE RESPONDENT
Barristers & Solicitors ROYAL LePAGE RELOCATION
Toronto, Ontario SERVICES LIMITED