SCC Case Information
Northrop Grumman Overseas Services Corporation v. Attorney General of Canada, et al.
(Federal Court) (Civil) (By Leave)
(Court file contains information that is not available for inspection by the public)
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch) for information purposes only.
Commercial law - Trade - Legislation - Interpretation - Jurisdiction - Canadian International Trade Tribunal - Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 47 - Agreement on internal trade - Complainant had not shown itself to be a “Canadian supplier” - CITT found that it had jurisdiction - Whether the majority of the Federal Court of Appeal erred when it refused to consider the French version of the AIT and to provide guidance with respect to the equality of French and English in the interpretation of such intergovernmental agreements - Whether standing to make a complaint to the CITT pursuant to s. 30.11 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act is curtailed by the AIT - If so, in what manner? - Whether Parliament intended a bifurcated system to address bidders’ grievances - If so, how to determine the respective roles of the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Tribunal? - How to determine the application of the doctrine of “adequate alternative remedy”?
Northrop Grumman Overseas Services Corporation complained that PWGSC had failed to evaluate bids submitted in response to a request for proposals (RFP) in accordance with the Evaluation Plan, thereby breaching Art. 506(6). Specifically, it had not been awarded earned points, and the winning bidder, Lockheed Martin Corporation, had been awarded unearned points.
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) accepted the complaint, finding that its jurisdiction did not depend on the complainant being a “Canadian supplier” and that Northrop Overseas had met the requirements of s. 30.13(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 47, and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations, SOR/93-602, s. 7(1). The CITT upheld the complaint. After hearing the application for judicial review, the Court of Appeal requested submissions on this question:
If Northrop Overseas. . . is not a Canadian supplier as defined in Article 518 of the AIT, can it be said that Article 101(1) of the AIT renders the AIT inapplicable to Northrop Overseas on the basis that a sale of goods by Northrop Overseas to the Department of National Defence could not constitute “trade within Canada”?
Reviewing the decision on jurisdiction, a majority of the Court of Appeal overturned the CITT’s decision, finding that the AIT complaints procedure was only open to “Canadian suppliers”. It returned the matter to the CITT to determine whether Northrop Overseas is a Canadian supplier.