Derek Rasmussen

The plaintiffs, shareholders and creditors in Mobilicity, a wireless telecommunications company, sued the federal government for negligence and negligent misrepresentation arising from the 2008 AWS spectrum auction.

The plaintiffs alleged that Industry Canada represented that spectrum licences acquired at auction would be transferable to incumbent carriers after a five-year moratorium, and that they relied on this representation to invest approximately $250 million in equity and $95 million in debt to capitalize Mobilicity and bid for spectrum licences.

The plaintiffs further alleged that in 2013, the government unilaterally changed the transfer framework to prohibit transfers to incumbents, and in 2014-2015 interfered with Mobilicity's sales process through threats, media manipulation, and regulatory delay.

The court found the government liable for negligence and negligent misrepresentation, holding that it owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs based on specific representations made to induce investment, and that it breached that duty through the implementation of the 2013 Transfer Framework and subsequent interference in the sales process.

The court awarded damages based on a "but for" analysis, calculating what the plaintiffs would have earned in alternative investments had they not relied on the government's representations.

The appellant, Valerie Jacob, a recipient of Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit (CPP-D), challenged the eligibility criteria for the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and Canadian Recovery Benefit (CRB) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

She argued that the $5,000 income threshold and the exclusion of CPP-D from eligible income sources violated her equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The application judge dismissed her claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the income threshold and the exclusion of CPP-D did constitute a breach of s. 15(1) due to their disproportionate impact on disabled workers.

However, the Court further concluded that this breach was justified as a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Charter, given the emergency context of the pandemic and the government's need for a simple, fast mechanism for benefit delivery, along with subsequent ameliorative measures like relaxed Employment Insurance rules.

The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were ordered.

The applicant, Valerie Jacob, challenged the $5,000 income eligibility criteria for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), and Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit (CRSB), asserting it violated her section 15(1) Charter right due to her physical disability.

The court applied the two-step test from R. v. Sharma, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a disproportionate impact based on disability (first step) and that the criteria did not reinforce, perpetuate, or exacerbate disadvantage (second step).

The court concluded the $5,000 threshold was not arbitrary, being based on a minimum workforce attachment benchmark, and applied equally to disabled and non-disabled individuals who did not meet it.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The plaintiffs, a joint venture, sued the Attorney General of Canada for damages arising from a flawed government procurement process for relocation services.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Crown breached its implied contractual duty of fair and equal treatment by designing the Request for Proposals to favour the incumbent contractor, Royal LePage Relocation Services.

The court found that the Crown acted in bad faith, intentionally concealed preferences in the tender documents, and allowed the incumbent to submit a non-compliant bid regarding property management services.

The court declared the plaintiffs the successful tendering party and awarded them $29,166,507 in damages for lost profits.

A claim for punitive damages was dismissed.

During a lengthy civil trial concerning federal relocation service contracts, the plaintiffs brought a motion to vary an earlier production order that had refused disclosure of a competitor’s administration fees.

After hearing extensive trial evidence, the court concluded that the administration fees were relevant to both liability and damages, particularly in understanding the effect of a zero‑percent bid for property management services.

Newly discovered facts showed that the defendant’s expert had requested and used the fees in internal analyses despite earlier representations suggesting otherwise.

Applying Rule 59.06(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that orders may be varied where new facts arise or are discovered that would have materially affected the earlier decision.

The court therefore ordered limited disclosure of the administration fees and related reconciliation documents.

During an ongoing civil trial, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim based on information obtained from documents recently disclosed by the defendant relating to an internal investigation into conflicts of interest in a government procurement process.

The proposed amendments alleged concealment of investigation results, revisions to internal reports, reprisals against the investigator, and motivations behind a subsequent retendering process.

The defendant opposed only the allegations concerning disciplinary threats against the investigator, arguing they were not relevant to the pleaded causes of action.

The court held that the amendments were prima facie meritorious and relevant to the plaintiffs’ theory that the defendant intended to conceal the investigation results and influenced the investigation process.

Finding no non-compensable prejudice under Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court granted leave to amend the statement of claim.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim during the cross‑examination of a witness.

The court addressed the procedural steps required to fairly accommodate the amendments while the trial was ongoing.

The judge ordered that the plaintiffs complete the current cross‑examination, after which the defendant could file an amended statement of defence responding to the amendments.

Additional procedural directions were provided allowing the defendant to recall the witness, conduct examination in chief on new matters, and potentially call further witnesses addressing issues arising from the amendments.

The plaintiffs sought a ruling confirming the admissibility of documents produced pursuant to a prior court order in litigation concerning federal relocation services procurement processes.

The defendant argued that the documents constituted hearsay, lacked authenticity, and were irrelevant to the fairness of the procurement process.

The court rejected these objections, finding the documents relevant to issues including alleged bias or preferential treatment in favour of another service provider and the conduct of government officials during the procurement processes.

The court held that the documents formed part of contractual documentation required under the relevant requests for proposal and were admissible for evidentiary purposes, including cross‑examination and proof of their contents.

Costs of the ruling were awarded to the plaintiffs on a partial indemnity basis.