Over the course of 2019, we covered a lot of topics including the adoption of social procurement practices in organizations across Canada, the impact of new trade agreements, how recent court cases provided clarity on certain “grey” areas of law, and much more.

Our goal is to publish the highest quality articles addressing the more complicated business and legal issues in Canadian procurement, so you can make better informed decisions that reduce risk of litigation, increase efficiencies, and deliver better contract value for your organization.

We hope you received excellent value from our newsletter over the course of 2019, and we look forward to assisting you make better informed decisions in 2020.

The Top 7 of 2019

Among all the articles we published in 2019, below are the top 7 most viewed.

And a special “hats off” to our instructor “Lise Patry” for sharing her vast experience in Canadian procurement and authoring the most viewed Legal Edge article published in 2019!

1. The Trinity of Risk Allocation in Contracts: Limitation of Liability, Indemnity and Insurance

The trinity of risk allocation is the limitation of liability, indemnity and insurance clauses. Together, this trinity of clauses forms the foundation of risk allocation in contracts… Continue reading

2. New Supreme Court of Canada Ruling Upholds Unfairness Exclusion Clause in RFP Process

Legal Edge readers who have been following the recent court decisions in Mega Reporting Inc. v Yukon (Government of), 2018 YKCA 10 will know that the Yukon Court of Appeal dismissed a claim for damages filed by an unsuccessful proponent for court reporting services… Continue reading

3. What Should Happen if an RFP is Cancelled After the Contract Value is Disclosed? You Be the Judge!

In June 2017, the Department of Public Works and Government Services (“DPWGS”) on behalf of the Department of National Defence (“DND”) issued a Request for Proposals for supplying 16 replacement electro-hydraulic marine cranes for the Royal Canadian Navy’s Halifax Class ships, along with an option to purchase 14 more cranes of the same design… Continue reading

4. Unsuccessful Incumbent Challenges Loss of Contract

A recent decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench reinforces the importance of a clear delineation between mandatory and desirable requirements in a Request for Proposal. It also reviews the standard applied by the court during a Judicial Review, as well as the impact of specific discretion clauses in procurement… Continue reading

5. $25,000,000 Claim for Damages in Competitive Dialogue Process

A recent decision of the Ont. Superior Court of Justice considers the respective obligations of an owner and bidders in a competitive dialogue process – the owner must act fairly and in accordance with the terms, and the bidder must comply with the requirements of the RFP that commences the process, regardless of whether Contract A applies. The decision also reviews whether damages are available to a disqualified bidder in a such a process… Continue reading 

6. Is An Employee’s Communication with Proponents Grounds for Dismissal? You be the Judge

What happens when the key employee running a procurement process sends information about an RFP, including the pricing of opponents’ bids, to the incumbent, and socializes with that incumbent before and during the procurement process? Can the employer fire this employee for cause, and therefore pay no damages? Continue reading

7. What Duty of Fairness is Owed When Reconsidering an RFP Disqualification? You Be the Judge!

On September 4, 2014, the Crown corporation Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation (“IO”) issued a Request for Proposals to identify companies that would negotiate with the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (“LCBO”; together with IO, the “Sponsors”) and, if successful, execute an agreement for redeveloping waterfront property in Toronto… Continue reading

Readers are cautioned not to rely upon this article as legal advice nor as an exhaustive discussion of the topic or case.  For any particular legal problem, seek advice directly from your lawyer or in-house counsel.  All dates, contact information and website addresses were current at the time of original publication.