Annual report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025

June 30, 2025

It is with great pride and a deep sense of responsibility that we present the Tribunal’s annual report for the period of April 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025. This report summarizes the activities, highlights and successes of the Tribunal over the past year.

The past year represented a particularly meaningful milestone in the Tribunal’s history, marking the 30th anniversary of the Tribunal as we know it today, following the integration of the Procurement Review Board in 1994. Over the past three decades, the Tribunal has grown in its mandates, matured in its jurisprudence, and deepened its commitment to serving Canadians with fairness, impartiality and transparency. 

Throughout the 2024-25 fiscal year, the Tribunal continued to navigate an evolving trade landscape with resilience and integrity. Our work remains firmly rooted in our core mandate: to ensure that Canada’s trade remedy system, government procurement review and customs and excise appeals operate in full conformity with Canada’s international trade obligations and that they are administered with rigour, independence and clarity. 

Over the past year, the Tribunal experienced a significant increase in its caseload, with procurement inquiry decisions increasing by 36% and trade remedy decisions by 125% compared to the previous year. With respect to trade remedies, and as Canada’s final authority on whether dumped or subsidized imports are causing injury to the domestic market, the Tribunal plays a critical role within the framework of our obligations under the World Trade Organization agreements. This mandate requires deep economic and quantitative expertise. At a time when the global trade landscape is becoming increasingly complex and unpredictable, the Tribunal’s work has never been more crucial to Canada’s economic resilience and credibility as a global leader.

This year, the Tribunal also issued its first ever show cause order, an extraordinary enforcement measure for the Tribunal. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act gives the Tribunal, as an independent, quasi-judicial body, the same powers, rights and privileges as those vested in a superior court of record. Compelling the production of documents through contempt proceedings is one such power. The associated contempt hearing represents an important development in the evolution of the Tribunal’s powers and practice. It underscores our readiness to adapt our procedures to meet the needs of increasingly complex and contentious cases while always remaining within the bounds of our statutory authority. 

This past year, we were pleased to welcome Elizabeth Whitsitt as a new member to the Tribunal as of October 7, 2024. In addition to her impressive expertise in international trade law, Member Whitsitt is the first Tribunal member appointed who resides outside the National Capital Region. This milestone reflects a significant step forward in the ongoing commitment to fostering a diverse composition, geographically and otherwise, to ensure that the Tribunal truly reflects the richness and diversity of Canada. We are confident that the inclusion of perspectives from across the country will only enhance the quality and reach of our work. We also welcome the continuing contributions and expertise of members Fréchette, Heggart and Wildhaber, whose respective terms have been extended as temporary members.

As we reflect on this landmark year, we are reminded of the enduring importance of the Tribunal’s work in Canada’s trade ecosystem. We are proud to fulfill our responsibility with impartiality, diligence and unwavering respect for the rule of law. 

Finally, we want to express our deep appreciation to the staff of the Tribunal Secretariat. Whether they are data specialists, economists, legal counsel, registry officers, editors or administrative professionals, their expertise and dedication are essential to the Tribunal’s ability to deliver on its mandates. We also recognize our colleagues, past and present, whose contributions have built the strong foundation upon which the Tribunal stands today. 

As we look ahead, we remain fully committed to modernizing our processes, broadening access to justice and continuing to serve Canadians with the fairness, independence and accountability that are cornerstones of our work and the oath we have each taken. 

Frédéric Seppey
Chairperson

Bree Jamieson-Holloway
Vice-Chairperson

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal is recognized, in Canada and on the international stage, for its ability to adjudicate trade disputes in a rigorous, fair, transparent and timely fashion. The Tribunal provides Canadian and international businesses with decisions and determinations on trade remedy inquiries, federal government procurement inquiries, and customs duties and excise tax appeals. At the request of the Government, the Tribunal can also provide advice in economic and tariff matters.

The Tribunal is a quasi-judicial institution that is independent of the Government. It has all the powers, rights and privileges vested in a superior court of record concerning matters necessary or proper for the exercise of its jurisdiction. The Tribunal reports to Parliament through the Minister of Finance. It conducts its proceedings as informally and expeditiously as possible.

The Tribunal has little control over the volume and complexity of its workload and faces tight statutory deadlines for most of its cases. 

Trade remedy inquiries

Under the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), the Tribunal determines whether the dumping or subsidizing of imported goods has caused injury or is threatening to cause injury to a domestic industry. Dumping means that foreign producers are selling their goods in the Canadian market for less than the price of similar goods in their home markets or at prices that do not cover costs and a reasonable amount for profits. Subsidizing means that foreign producers have benefited from certain types of financial or other supports by foreign governments. These practices may result in imports flooding the Canadian market at low prices, disrupting supply chains and harming Canadian producers of these goods and, ultimately, the people employed to make those goods.

If the Tribunal determines that imported goods are causing injury or threatening to cause injury to a domestic industry, then anti-dumping or, in the case of subsidizing, countervailing duties apply to the imports for a period of five years. A finding of injury or threat of injury expires after five years unless the Tribunal continues it following an expiry review. A finding can also be rescinded early under certain circumstances.

Procurement inquiries

The Tribunal inquires into complaints by potential suppliers of certain goods or services. It decides whether the federal government broke its procurement obligations under certain trade agreements. It considers whether bids were evaluated fairly and according to the terms and conditions of a procurement process. The Tribunal can recommend remedies and award costs.

Customs and excise appeals

The Tribunal hears and decides appeals of decisions made by the Canada Border Services Agency under the Customs Act and SIMA. Appeals under the Customs Act relate to tariff classification, value for duty and the origin of imported goods. Appeals under SIMA relate to whether certain goods fall within the scope of trade remedy measures or to the normal value, export price or amount of subsidy in relation to imported goods subject to an injury finding. The Tribunal also hears and decides appeals of decisions of the Minister of National Revenue made under the Excise Tax Act. These appeals relate to assessments or determinations of excise tax.

Safeguard inquiries

International trade rules allow Canada to temporarily restrict imports to allow Canadian producers to adapt to increased imports which cause or threaten to cause serious injury. These temporary measures are called safeguards. The Tribunal inquires into safeguard complaints from Canadian producers and conducts safeguard references upon request from the Government of Canada.

Economic and tariff inquiries

The Government of Canada, by way of the Governor in Council or the Minister of Finance, may direct the Tribunal to inquire into and provide advice on economic, trade or tariff issues.

The Tribunal’s caseload over the last five years has remained steady, especially with respect to procurement reviews, dumping and subsidizing expiry reviews and customs appeals. The table below contains some key indicators in this regard.

To safeguard the integrity of the Government of Canada’s procurement processes, the Tribunal has been vested with the mandate of: 

• inquiring into complaints by potential suppliers of goods or services to the federal government relating to designated contracts valued above certain monetary thresholds;
• determining whether procurement processes that are the subject of complaints complied with Canada’s obligations under certain trade agreements;
• considering issues such as whether bids were evaluated fairly;
• recommending remedies and awarding costs; and
• providing recommendations to federal government institutions about their procurement processes.

There are potentially up to three stages in the Tribunal’s consideration of a procurement complaint:

1. Acceptance stage – Within five working days of receipt of a properly documented complaint, the Tribunal determines whether the complaint was filed within statutory deadlines, whether it concerns a procurement process subject to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and whether the complaint discloses a reasonable indication of breach of compliance with the trade agreements. If those conditions are met, the Tribunal may begin an inquiry.
2. Inquiry stage – Inquiries must be completed within 45, 90 or 135 days, depending on the complexity of the matter. The Tribunal examines the complainant’s allegations, the submissions of the government institution involved in the matter, and in certain cases submissions by interested parties. If a complaint is valid, the Tribunal will recommend an appropriate remedy (for example, that a new solicitation be issued, the bids be re-evaluated, or the contract be terminated).
3. Compensation stage – If a complaint is valid and the Tribunal recommends compensation (i.e., a monetary award), the Tribunal asks parties to negotiate a mutually agreed amount of compensation. If parties cannot agree on an amount, the Tribunal will receive submissions and decide on an appropriate amount of compensation. 

Overview of the procurement complaint process

1. A potential supplier has 10 working days after the day it becomes aware, or should have become aware, of the grounds (the reasons) for the complaint to file:
   1. a complaint with the Tribunal.
   2. an objection with the government institution that is awarding the contract. If the potential supplier can’t settle its objection with the government institution, it can still bring a complaint to the Tribunal within 10 working days of being informed that the government institution hasn’t addressed the objection to the liking of the potential supplier.
2. The Tribunal reviews the complaint to determine whether it can accept it for inquiry. The potential supplier is notified within one week if the complaint is accepted for inquiry.
3. If the complaint is accepted for inquiry, the government institution has 25 days to file the Government Institution Report, which is its response to the complaint.
4. The complainant has 7 working days to provide comments on the report.
5. In most cases, within 90 calendar days from its receipt, the Tribunal determines whether the complaint is valid, valid in part or not valid.
6. If a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s findings, it can ask the Federal Court of Appeal to review the matter.

Relationship between the Tribunal and the Office of the Procurement Ombud

Since October 1, 2020, the Office of the Procurement Ombud (OPO) and the Tribunal have worked under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU aims to ease potential suppliers’ access to the complaint review system administered by both organizations. It also provides for continued cooperation between OPO and the Tribunal. The Tribunal and OPO have jurisdiction over procurement complaints brought by Canadian suppliers as follows:

The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints by foreign suppliers about government procurement processes under applicable trade agreements. When filing a complaint with either OPO or the Tribunal, complainants are given the option to share their contact information and the basic nature of their complaint with the other organization. This exchange enhances access to justice by ensuring that complainants are filing their complaints in the right place and, most importantly, in the timeliest manner possible. During this fiscal year, a majority of complainants used this service.

Officials from OPO and the Tribunal and its secretariat have continued to meet in 2024-25 to discuss each organization’s jurisdiction and how to ensure that parties have better access to justice.

Historical trend: Procurement complaints received

The Tribunal’s caseload for its procurement review mandate remains relatively consistent with historical trends for the last ten years. 

Procurement review activities in 2024-25

Complaints received – self-represented parties

Of note, this year saw a continuation in a growing trend experienced by the Tribunal. Of the 86 complaints received this year, 64 were filed by self-represented parties. In that regard, to support such parties, the Tribunal’s website includes a set of guidelines describing the Tribunal’s procurement inquiry mandate and procedures. Potential complainants will also find on the Tribunal’s website a procurement complaint form, in multiple formats, with a comprehensive set of instructions that they can rely on to present their case to the Tribunal.

Compensation

Where the Tribunal determines that a procurement complaint is valid, it may recommend any remedy that it considers appropriate, including payment of compensation to the complainant. In cases where the Tribunal does not specify the amount of compensation to be paid, the Tribunal instructs the complainant and the government institution to negotiate that amount. 

When the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the Tribunal receives submissions from the parties and establishes the final amount of compensation to be paid. The Tribunal issued one recommendation regarding compensation during this fiscal year in Chantier Davie Canada Inc. and Wärtsilä Canada Inc. v. Department of Public Works and Government Services (PR-2023-006). In three cases, parties reached a settlement on compensation, thus bringing these proceedings to a close. 

Noteworthy decisions under the procurement review mandate 

White Bear Industries (PR-2024-044)

This case relates to the disqualification by the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) of a bid. To do so, it applied a clause (the rejection clause) that allowed it to disqualify a bid where there was, among other things, “evidence satisfactory to Canada” of fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation or evidence that, based on past conduct or behaviour, the bidder conducted itself improperly or is otherwise unsuitable. This was the first time the Tribunal was asked to consider a procuring entity’s rejection of a bid on the basis of allegations of fraud or misconduct relating to past performance. The complexity of the case required the Tribunal to hold a two-day hearing—an exceptional practice for the Tribunal in a procurement inquiry.

The complainant, White Bear Industries Ltd (WBI), is a family-owned business which has a long history of performing highway maintenance and repair work for both PWGSC and the British Columbia government. PWGSC disqualified WBI’s bid for the new solicitation by invoking the rejection clause, claiming that WBI had entered into unauthorized agreements under a previous, ongoing contract and had engaged in improper invoicing for those agreements.

The Tribunal noted that it does not have jurisdiction to decide on the agreements made under the previous contract. However, it concluded that it did have the jurisdiction to review PWGSC’s decision to disqualify WBI’s bid because that decision relates to bid evaluation within the procurement process. Bid disqualification under the rejection clause amounts to rejection for non-compliance with a mandatory requirement. It should be reviewed on the established deferential standard of reasonableness. 

The Tribunal found the complaint to be valid, concluding that PWGSC had not provided a reasonable or tenable explanation for rejecting WBI’s bid. The rejection clause lists grounds for rejecting a bid that have legal meaning or counterparts as causes of action at common law. Those grounds are serious and pejorative, and they imply moral turpitude. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the phrase, “evidence satisfactory to Canada”, underpinning that clause meant evidence that is sufficiently probative and reliable to satisfy the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities. In the Tribunal’s view, PWGSC did not consider the relevant legal tests applicable to each of the grounds for rejection in the rejection clause, had not conducted a thorough factual investigation, and failed to provide WBI with fair notice of the allegations. 

Oracle Canada ULC (PR-2024-015)

Oracle Canada ULC (Oracle) filed three complaints with the Tribunal regarding a complex procurement process by Shared Services Canada (SSC) to provide public cloud computing services to the Government of Canada for many years. The complaints were submitted while the request for proposal (RFP) was still open and focused primarily on the selection criteria used in the fourth step of a twelve-step process to prequalify potential suppliers for the subsequent steps.

Oracle’s main grounds of complaint related to the limitation on the number of bidders selected at the end of the prequalification process, restrictions on suppliers’ ability to prequalify for subsequent stages based on the same selection criteria as those applied during the initial prequalification, and an alleged lack of transparency regarding the subsequent stages of the process. The Tribunal conducted its investigation concurrently with the progress of the RFP, with SSC publishing 26 amendments to the RFP to address the questions and comments from bidders, including Oracle. Some of Oracle’s grounds of complaint became moot because of these amendments.

The Tribunal recognized that SSC is entitled to use a multi-stage process for such a complex procurement but emphasized that the process must comply with the principles of openness, fairness and transparency. In this regard, the Tribunal recommended that SSC amend the RFP to explicitly allow any potential supplier to be added to the prequalification list in the future based on the same evaluation criteria as those selected. Furthermore, regarding transparency, the Tribunal recommended that SSC make public the final tender that will be issued at a later stage of the process. 

After the investigation, the Tribunal received a separate complaint from a bidder that was not selected at the end of the prequalification process.

Fraser River Pile & Dredge (GP) Inc. (PR-2024-028)  

The complaint was about the second solicitation for a project to replace a wharf in Okeover, British Columbia. The project was divided into two solicitations: the first was for the fabrication, and the second was for the installation. Pacific Industrial & Marine Inc. (PIM) was awarded the fabrication solicitation, and then it bid on and was awarded the installation solicitation. Fraser River Pile & Dredge (GP) Ltd. (Fraser River) challenged that outcome. It had also bid on the installation solicitation but argued that it would have bid differently, or not at all, had it known that PIM was involved in the fabrication solicitation and that PIM could still bid on the installation solicitation despite its involvement in the first portion of the project. Fraser River argued that this was unfair.

The Tribunal found that PWGSC structured the two procurement processes in a way that created inextricable links between the fabrication and installation solicitations. As a result, when bidding on the second solicitation, PIM was already a prime actor in the wharf replacement project. The Tribunal found that knowledge of that information could reasonably have influenced or changed how a prudent business approached its bid. The Tribunal also found that bidders could reasonably have expected PWGSC to take certain actions or measures to prevent or mitigate any unfairness or perception of unfairness created by the circumstances, yet PWGSC took none. Consequently, Fraser River and other bidders had no way to consider PIM and its involvement in the fabrication solicitation when assessing the competitive landscape while developing their approach to the installation solicitation.

The Tribunal found the complaint valid and awarded Fraser River its bid preparation and complaint costs.

EBC Inc. (PR-2023-053)

EBC Inc. (EBC) filed a complaint with the Tribunal against PWGSC. The dispute arose from a government procurement process for construction management services. EBC claimed it was unfairly disqualified from the bidding process after PWGSC rejected its revised bid bond, which EBC submitted after the initial deadline but in response to a government request.

EBC submitted an electronic bid bond which was in a format that could not be verified, contrary to the terms of the request for proposal. Following the solicitation’s closing date, PWGSC requested that EBC re-submit the bond in a correct electronic format. EBC complied the same day, and PWGSC acknowledged receipt, saying no further action was needed. Months later, PWGSC notified EBC that its bid was disqualified for not meeting the original bid bond requirement.

EBC protested, arguing that PWGSC’s request for a new bond was permitted under the Phased Bid Compliance Process (PBCP), which allows the government to ask for missing information and for bidders to correct certain errors post-submission.

The Tribunal found that the terms of the solicitation allowed the government to request missing financial information (like a proper bid bond) and to accept corrected submissions. By explicitly requesting a corrected bid bond and giving EBC a deadline to do so, PWGSC triggered this process. Once EBC complied, the government was required to consider the new bond in evaluating the bid. The Tribunal noted that such a requirement is consistent with the underlying rationale of the PBCP, including its objectives of promoting competition and increasing bid compliance. The Tribunal ultimately found that, by ignoring the new bid bond, PWGSC violated both the terms of the request for proposal and fair procurement rules under trade agreements like the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. 

Judicial or panel reviews of Tribunal decisions

Any person affected by Tribunal findings or orders issued under the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) can apply for judicial review by the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) on grounds of, for instance, denial of natural justice or error of law. Any person affected by Tribunal procurement findings and recommendations under the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act can similarly request judicial review by the FCA under sections 18.1 and 28 of the Federal Courts Act. Lastly, Tribunal orders and decisions made pursuant to the Customs Act can be appealed under that act to the FCA or, under the Excise Tax Act, to the Federal Court. 

This year again, a small proportion (8 out of 196 or 4%) of the Tribunal decisions were appealed to a reviewing court.

Judicial reviews of Special Import Measures Act cases 

There were no applications for judicial review filed before the FCA this fiscal year.

Judicial reviews of procurement complaints

There were six applications for judicial review of a decision by the Tribunal in a procurement complaint this fiscal year. Two of these applications were since discontinued by the applicant, and three remain outstanding at the end of the fiscal year.

During this fiscal year, one application for judicial review of a Tribunal decision filed in a previous fiscal year came to a close. The FCA dismissed the application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in EllisDon Corporation v. Department of Public Works and Government Services (PR-2023-010). 

Appeals of Customs Act and Special Import Measures Act appeal decisions 

Two of the Tribunal’s decision under this mandate were challenged in the FCA this fiscal year.

During this fiscal year, the FCA dismissed appeals, filed in previous years, of Tribunal decisions in Charoen Pokphand Foods Canada Inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency (AP-2021-008), Interpro Distributeurs de Viandes inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency (AP-2020-030) and Best Buy Canada Ltd. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency (AP-2022-015). The FCA also dismissed the separate application for judicial review related to the latter decision of the Tribunal, as well as the application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in J. Byrne v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency (AP-2019-007).