3 total
The Court of Appeal restored an administrative decision upholding a domestic production requirement for identification cards, finding the decision reasonable.
This is an appeal from a Divisional Court decision that granted judicial review, quashing an administrative decision and a request for bids related to the procurement of identification cards.
The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) required card stock to be produced in Canada, which Thales DIS Canada Inc. (Thales) challenged as discriminatory under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
The Divisional Court found the MTO's decision and request for bids unreasonable.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court misapplied the reasonableness standard of review by conducting a de novo assessment instead of focusing on the administrative decision-maker's reasons.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the Director's decision was reasonable and that the request for bids was not separately subject to judicial review given the existence of an adequate internal dispute resolution process.
Permanent sealing order granted over commercially sensitive procurement proposals to protect future competitive bidding processes.
The Regional Municipality of York brought a motion for a limited permanent sealing order on consent over proprietary information submitted by two bidders during a competitive procurement process for public transportation services.
The court applied the three-part test from Sherman Estate and found that court openness posed a serious risk to the important public interest of maintaining the integrity of future procurement processes.
The court granted the sealing order, concluding that the benefits of protecting the commercially sensitive information outweighed the negative effects on court openness.
Judicial review of transit contract award dismissed; municipality's interpretation of RFP subcontractor rules was reasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent municipality's decision to award a transit operations and maintenance contract to a competing bidder.
The applicant argued that the successful bidder's proposal was non-compliant with the Request for Proposals because it included a subcontractor who was already the contractor for another transit division, allegedly violating a one-contractor-per-division rule.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the municipality's interpretation of the RFP—that the restriction applied only to contractors, not subcontractors—was reasonable and that the procurement process was fair and transparent.
