Gestion Complexe Cousineau (1989) Inc. v. Canada (Ministre des Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux), (1995) 184 N.R. 260 (FCA)

• Judge: Hugessen, Desjardins and Décary, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: May 12, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 184 N.R. 260 (FCA)

Gestion Complexe Cousineau v. Can. (1995), 184 N.R. 260 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Gestion Complexe Cousineau (1989) Inc. (appelante/requérante) v. Ministre des Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux du Canada et Procureur général du Canada, pour Sa Majesté la Reine, Chef du Canada (intimés/intimés) et Complexe Métro Longueuil Ltée et Ministre du Revenu du Canada (mis-en-cause/mis-en-cause)

(A-45-95)

Indexed As: Gestion Complexe Cousineau (1989) Inc. v. Canada (Ministre des Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux)

Federal Court of Appeal

Hugessen, Desjardins and

Décary, JJ.A.

May 12, 1995.

Summary:

The Minister of Public Works and Gov­ernment Services of Canada issued a public invitation to tender for the purpose of leas­ing office space. Two notices were pub­lished, the second with some alterations. After the contract was awarded, one unsuc­cessful tenderer applied for judicial review of the decision, alleging a violation of the Financial Administration Act and procedural unfairness.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 90 F.T.R. 214, dismissed the application. The tenderer appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 4021.1

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Decisions of federal boards, commissions or tribunals - Regu­lations made under s. 16(2)(b) of the Fed­eral Real Property Act empowered the Minister to lease real property - The Min­ister issued a public invitation to tender for the purpose of leasing office space - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Minister's actions were subject to review by the court - See paragraphs 4 to 20.

Crown - Topic 1109

Contracts with Crown - Building contracts - Tenders - The Crown issued a public invitation to tender for the purpose of leasing office space - After the contract was awarded, one unsuccessful tenderer applied for judicial review of the decision - It alleged that the Minister accepted a bid that did not meet the bid documents' requirements and that the Minister allowed the successful bidder to improve its offer after the bids were opened - The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the unsuc­cessful tenderer's objections were unfounded and declined to interfere with the Minister's decision - See paragraphs 21 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

Grand Council of the Crees (Quebec) et al. v. Canada, Munro and Begin, [1982] 1 F.C. 599; 41 N.R. 257 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Southam Inc. and Rusnell v. Canada (At­torney General), [1990] 3 F.C. 465; 114 N.R. 255 (F.C.A.), reving. [1989] 3 F.C. 147; 27 F.T.R. 139 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Ron Engineering & Construction (Eastern) Ltd. v. Ontario and Water Resources Commission, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 111; 35 N.R. 40, refd to. [para. 5].

Northeast Marine Services Ltd. v. Atlantic Pilotage Authority (1995), 179 N.R. 17 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Bendahmane v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1989] 3 F.C. 16; 95 N.R. 385 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Local 8 et al. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture) et al. (1994), 174 N.R. 37 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. King­sley, [1992] 3 F.C. 611; 145 N.R. 233 (F.C.A.) affd. [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 12].

Native Women's Association of Canada et al. v. Canada et al., [1992] 3 F.C. 192; 146 N.R. 40 (F.C.A.) revd. on other grounds [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627; 173 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 12].

Cree Regional Authority v. Québec (Procureur général), [1991] 3 F.C. 533; 127 N.R. 52 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Cree Regional Authority v. Canada (Fed­eral Administrator) - see Cree Regional Authority v. Québec (Procureur général).

Assaly (Thomas C.) Corp. v. Canada (1990), 34 F.T.R. 156 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Friends of the Island Inc. v. Canada (Min­ister of Public Works) et al., [1993] 2 F.C. 229; 61 F.T.R. 4 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Beauchamp v. Hockin (1989), 30 F.T.R. 318 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Peet v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 3 F.C. 128; 78 F.T.R. 44 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 18, sect. 91, sect. 101 [para. 14].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 2(1), sect. 18(1)(a) [para. 5]; sect. 91 [para. 14].

Federal Real Property Act, S.C. 1991, c. 50, sect. 16(2)(b) [para. 5].

Federal Real Property Act Regulations (Can.), SOR/92-502, sect. 4(1) [para. 5].

Authors and Works:

Canada, House of Commons Debates (November 1, 1989), pp. 5413, 5414 [para. 9].

Desjardins, Alice, Review of Administra­tive Action in the Federal Court of Canada: The New Style in a Pluralist Setting, Law Society of Upper Canada Special Lectures (1992), pp. 405 to 437 [para. 9].

Counsel:

Sylvain Lussier and Line Lacasse, for the appellant;

Jacques Ouellet, Q.C., and André Brault, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Desjardins, Ducharme, Stein, Monast, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 4 and 5, 1995, before Hugessen, Desjardins and Décary, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. On May 12, 1995, Décary, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court.