ADIRONDACK INFORMATION MANAGEMENT INC.
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
File No. PR-2015-019

Order and reasons issued
Friday, July 24, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• ORDER
• STATEMENT OF REASONS
  • BACKGROUND
  • ANALYSIS
  • ORDER

 

IN THE MATTER OF a complaint filed by Adirondack Information Management Inc. pursuant to subsection 30.11(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 47 (4th Supp.);

AND FURTHER TO a decision made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal on July 20, 2015, pursuant to subsection 30.13(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, not to conduct an inquiry into the complaint.

 

BETWEEN

ADIRONDACK INFORMATION MANAGEMENT INC. Complainant

AND

THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES Government Institution

ORDER

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal hereby sets aside its decision in this matter dated July 20, 2015.

Peter Burn
Peter Burn
Presiding Member

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

1. On July 17, 2015, Adirondack Information Management Inc. (Adirondack) filed a complaint with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal).
2. After reviewing the complaint and considering the necessary conditions for inquiry, I determined, on July 20, 2015, that the complaint was premature on the basis that Adirondack had made an objection, within the meaning of that term for the purposes of subsection 6(2) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations,^[1] to the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC), but that Adirondack had not yet received a denial of relief as set out in the Regulations. I issued a decision to this effect on July 21, 2015.
3. That same day, Adirondack informed the Registrar that it had received a denial of relief from PWGSC in the form of an email that had been included as an attachment to its complaint (the denial-of-relief email).
4. As soon as he was informed of this, the Registrar undertook the necessary verification of the electronic record that it had received from Adirondack. This enabled the Registrar to ascertain that the complaint filed by Adirondack did indeed contain the denial of relief email, but that it had not been included in the file that had been circulated to me for consideration and deliberation. Accordingly, the decision that I made on July 20, 2015, was made with no knowledge of the denial-of-relief email, even though Adirondack had properly filed it with its complaint.

ANALYSIS

5. After issuing a decision, the decision-maker has usually exhausted its authority and cannot revisit that decision. That rule is known as functus officio (literally: the officer has exhausted his or her function). There are, however, certain exceptions to that rule. The one that is applicable here deals with decisions where a breach of “natural justice” has occurred. Natural justice deals with the fundamental tenets of fairness in proceedings. When a breach of that nature occurs, a decision is said to be void ab initio (i.e. it was never valid) and, consequently, because no valid decision was ever made, the decision-maker’s authority therefore lives on and can be exercised.^[2]
6. In the present instance, I consider that a breach of natural justice occurred: because of an administrative error, the full complaint that Adirondack had presented to the Tribunal was never before me. The decision that I made on July 20, 2015, is therefore void ab initio, and is consequently set aside.
7. The Tribunal will proceed to consider whether the conditions to commence an inquiry in relation to this complaint have been demonstrated, and will issue a decision in that respect in due course.

ORDER

8. The Tribunal hereby sets aside its decision in this matter dated July 20, 2015.