BETWEEN:
ENVOY RELOCATION SERVICES INC.
And NATIONAL RELOCATION SERVICES (RELONAT) INC.
(as a contractual joint venture called ENVOY RELATION SERVICES)
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 28, 2007.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 3, 2007.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: EVANS J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: RICHARD C.J.
CONCURRING REASONS BY: RYER J.A.
Docket: A-246-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 177
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
EVANS J.A.
RYER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ENVOY RELOCATION SERVICES INC.
And NATIONAL RELOCATION SERVICES (RELONAT) INC.
(as a contractual joint venture called ENVOY RELATION SERVICES)
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application for judicial review by Envoy Relocation Services Inc. of a revised decision by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”), dated April, 26, 2006, recommending that Envoy be paid half of the expenses in incurred in preparing unsuccessful bids on two government contracts.
[2] Envoy argues that it should have been awarded all its costs, since its bids prepared in response to a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) by Public Works and Government Services Canada (“PWGSC”) were never evaluated in accordance with the terms of the RFP.
[3] The background to this application is found in the reasons for judgment in Canada (Attorney General) v. Envoy Relocation Services Inc., 2007 FCA 176, which was heard immediately before the present application. In that case, the Attorney General argued that the CITT had erred by recommending that Envoy should receive any compensation at all, other than its costs in connection with the proceeding before the CITT. The argument was that PWGSC’s failure to evaluate a section of Envoy’s proposal in accordance with the RFP caused it no loss, since it would not have been awarded the contract in any event, and unsuccessful bidders bear the cost of preparing their bids.
[4] The Court dismissed the Attorney General’s application for judicial review, on the ground that, in the circumstances of that case, the CITT’s exercise of discretion was not patently unreasonable, nor based on any incorrect interpretation of its enabling statute.
[5] In the present case, counsel for Envoy made only a brief oral submission. He captured in the following aphorism the essence of his argument that Envoy was entitled to the full reimbursement of its bid preparation costs as a result of PWGSC’s failure to comply with the evaluation methodology it had prescribed in the RFP. “We were sold a lemon; we want our money back.”
[6] Unfortunately for Envoy, this plaintive cri de cœur is insufficient to win the intervention of a reviewing Court when applying the standard of patent unreasonableness to the impugned administrative decision. In my opinion, the CITT’s decision to recommend that Envoy be paid half of its costs was an eminently reasonable solution of the difficult and unusual problem created when it found itself unable to order a re-evaluation of the disputed section in all bidders’ proposals.
[7] In view of the broad remedial discretion conferred by Parliament on the CITT and of its expertise in selecting an appropriate remedy, it is not for the Court, in the absence of an error of law, to second guess the CITT’s decision.
[8] For these reasons, I would dismiss the application for judicial review with costs.
“John M. Evans”
“I agree.
J. Richard C.J.”
RYER J.A. (Concurring)
[9] I agree with Evans J.A. that this application for judicial review should be dismissed. In Canada (Attorney General) v. Envoy Relocation Services Inc., 2007 FCA 176, I concluded, in dissent, that the decision of the Tribunal to award 50% of Envoy’s bid costs as compensation was unsustainable. The same reasons that led me to that conclusion compel me to reject Envoy’s claim for 100% of its bid costs in this application.
“C. Michael Ryer”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-246-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: Envoy Relocation Services Inc. and National Relocation Services (Relonat) Inc. (as a contractual joint venture called Envoy Relocation Services) v. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: March 28, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Evans J.A.
CONCURRING REASONS BY: Ryer J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Catherine Beaudoin
|
FOR THE APPLICANTS |
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Ottawa, Ontario |
FOR THE APPLICANTS
|
|
Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario |
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|