[2011] 3 F.C.R. D-6
Foreign Trade
Judicial review seeking to quash three determinations of Canadian International Trade Tribunal—Applicant arguing Tribunal not having jurisdiction to determine respondent’s complaints because respondent not submitting bid; Tribunal finding that no act of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) in procurement process precluded respondent from submitting bid—Because respondent not meeting statutory definition of “potential supplier” as set out in Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 47, Tribunal obliged as matter of law to dismiss complaints for want of jurisdiction—One of respondent’s complaints relating to issue of when permissible for procurement to specify item to be procured by brand name—In determining whether PWGSC entitled to specify equipment by brand name, Tribunal considering interpretation, application of North American Free Trade Agreement Between the Government of Canada, the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America (NAFTA), December 17, 1992, [1994] Can T.S. No. 2, Art. 1007(3)—Discounting or ignoring evidence, justification offered by PWGSC rendered conclusion of Tribunal’s majority on interpretation, application of NAFTA, Art. 1007(3) wrong in principle; therefore unreasonable—In determining whether particular procurement may use brand name specification, Tribunal cannot disregard or discount as irrelevant evidence submitted by PWGSC in support of position that use of brand names in relation to particular procurement necessary to avoid unacceptable operational risk—Applications allowed.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Enterasys Networks of Canada Ltd. (A‑264‑10, A‑312‑10, A‑321‑10, 2011 FCA 207, Sharlow J.A., judgment dated June 20, 2011, 13 pp.)