4 total
Crown found liable for $29M in lost profits for bad faith in a government procurement process.
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.
Trial judge varied prior production order after discovering new relevant evidence.
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.
Appeal dismissed; grower's licence properly refused after circumventing prior production restrictions through a relative's contract.
The appellant, a processing tomato grower, had its 1999 production licence restricted to 300 tons as a penalty for marketing from unmeasured acreage in 1998.
In 1999, a relative of the appellant secured a new grower contract for 1,000 tons.
The respondent Board found that the appellant performed all the field work and effectively produced the relative's crop, thereby circumventing its licence restrictions.
The Board consequently refused to issue the appellant a licence for 2000.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding on a balance of probabilities that the appellant engaged in an arrangement to contravene its 1999 licence conditions, justifying the Board's refusal to issue a 2000 licence.
Appeal dismissed; jury finding that passenger voluntarily assumed risk of impaired driver's negligence upheld.
The appellant was injured while riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by the respondent, who was impaired by alcohol.
At trial, the jury found that the appellant had impliedly absolved the respondent from liability by willingly assuming the role of passenger while knowing of the impairment, successfully establishing the defence of volenti non fit injuria.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the volenti defence is rarely applicable in drunken driver-willing passenger cases, it was open to the jury on the evidence to reach that conclusion.
The Court also found that despite potential confusion in the trial judge's charge regarding the relationship between volenti and contributory negligence, the jury's answers were clear and their verdict was not unreasonable.
