Canada: Yukon Court Awards Damages Against The Government For Unfair Bid Evaluation

On November 16, 2017, the Supreme Court of Yukon issued its decision in Mega Reporting Inc. v. Government of Yukon, 2017 YKSC 69 ("Mega Reporting") awarding damages to an unsuccessful bidder in a government procurement situation on the basis of unfairness in the tender process.

The Government of Yukon (the "Government") had issued a "Request for Proposals" with respect to providing independent transcription services from court digital recordings.  The Government imposed a two-step tendering process: (1) evaluation of the bidder's experience and performance and (2) consideration of the bidder's sealed bid price only if a certain minimum score was awarded in the first step.  When a competing bidder was selected, Mega Reporting Inc. ("Mega") sued for damages alleging that the Government had breached its duty of fairness in the selection process.

Under Canadian law, a call for bids will typically give rise to contractual relations between the party seeking bids and the bidder (commonly referred to as "Contract A").1  Parties to a tender process may have reciprocal obligations arising, either expressly or impliedly, from Contract A.  One such implied contractual obligation is for the party seeking bids to treat all bidders fairly and equally.2

An evaluation committee established by the Government for this call for bids concluded that Mega did not attain the required minimum score and therefore proceeded to consider the other bid without opening Mega's sealed bid price.  The only contemporaneous records of the evaluation committee were some handwritten notes by one member of the committee, which did not reveal how or what score Mega received.  Mega's bid was ultimately lower than the competing bidder.

Mega challenged the fairness and transparency of the evaluation process on the basis that transparency requires the ability to show, via contemporaneous documents such as minutes or notes, that the process used and the decisions made were fair. The Government argued that it had met its obligation by creating and providing evaluation criteria to bidders and by applying such criteria to the evaluation process.  Given the lack of contemporaneous records, the Government requested that the Court infer such application on the basis of its evaluation committee member's handwritten notes, that member's oral evidence and a memo prepared several months after the fact.

The law is clear that proper record-keeping is integral to the fairness component of the competitive procurement system as it allows the party seeking bids to justify its decisions and the reviewing body to determine precisely what transpired.  That being said, record-keeping in itself does not insulate a party against claims arising from what can be deemed an arbitrary evaluation process.

It is of interest that, in addition to the common law standard of fairness requiring contemporaneous records to support its decision-making process, the Court held that the Government was subject to additional, related "statutory" duties.

The call for bids was governed by the Contracting and Procurement Regulation (the "Regulation") as well as the Contracting and Procurement Directive (the "Directive").  The Directive imposes a duty of fairness, openness, transparency, and accountability on the Government in the tendering process.  These terms are specifically defined in the Directive; for example, the Government is required under the "accountability" principle to be willing and able to account for the way contracting and procurement activities have been conducted.  Despite the fact that the Directive itself is not a regulation, the Court nonetheless treated such duties as statutory requirements for two reasons: the Government issued a letter for public distribution stating that these principles applied to government procurements and the call for bids itself stated that it was subject to both the Regulation and the Directive.

The Court held that the Government had failed to meet both the common law and additional statutory requirements of fairness, accountability, and transparency as follows:

  1. The lack of description in the call for bids of the process that would be used to evaluate whether bids met the Government's "basic criteria" in the first step evaluation stage;
  2. The inadequacy of the evidence regarding how Mega's bid was evaluated, combined with the fact that the Government had total and sole control over the creation of such evidence;
  3. The limited evidence available indicated that Mega's score had been reduced in the first step evaluation stage for failing to provide letters of reference even though no such letters were required by the call for bids; and
  4. The lack of contemporaneous records essentially rendered the Government unable to refute Mega's allegations or the above noted negatively drawn inference.

Having determined the issue of liability, the Court was then faced with the task of quantifying Mega's damages.  As may be expected, the Government argued that any damages should be discounted for the risk that Mega may not have been the successful bidder even if the bid process had been properly conducted.  This is a common and accepted defence.

Even in the quantification stage however, the Government's failure to maintain proper records of its bid process worked against it.  The Court held that the lack of evidence regarding the evaluation made it impossible to determine the likelihood that Mega would or would not have gotten the contract.  The Government's attempt to persuade the Court that Mega would not have been the successful bidder was strongly rebuked as an attempt to assume that fairness and transparency would have had no effect on the evaluation process.  The Government's alternate argument that Mega's damages be discounted by 50% was similarly rejected as the Court deemed it unjust to treat both parties equally when the failure to maintain records was solely due to the Government.  Damages were ultimately awarded to Mega, discounted for 25% to account for the possibility that its bid would not have been successful.

It is also worth noting that the Government unsuccessfully attempted to bar Mega's claim on the basis of a waiver provision in the call for bids.  The enforceability of exclusion of liability provisions in tender documents will depend on the three-pronged analysis established by Justice Binnie's dissent in Teracon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia (Transportation and Highways), 2010 SCC 4, which has been widely followed:

(a)  whether the waiver was intended to apply to these circumstances through an interpretation of the call for bids;

(b)  whether it was unconscionable at the time the contract was made; or

(c)  whether public policy reasons exist to refuse to enforce the waiver.

The Court in Mega Reporting decided not to enforce the waiver provision on the basis of the third prong alone.  In doing so, it made several comments that are of general application:

  1. The government's right to contract freely can be offset by public interest in ensuring a fair, accountable, open, and transparent bid process. This is particularly applicable in government procurements involving large amounts of public funds.
  2. The public has an overriding interest in ensuring that funds expended in government procurements are for the "competent provision of adequate goods and services at a reasonable price." As such, legislation relating to government procurements cannot, as a matter of public policy, be waived by private contract.  In other words, governments cannot, by way of tender documents, contract out of statutorily implied Contract A terms, which include the duties of fairness, accountability, openness, and transparency.
  3. The existence of a Bid Challenge Process in the tendering documents will not save an exclusion of liability clause if that Bid Challenge Process itself is not fair and cannot provide the same remedies as a court action.

Mega Reporting provides a helpful reminder for owners to keep contemporaneous records of their selection processes arising from a call for bids. They are strictly bound to abide by the evaluation criteria which they advertise in their call for bids and the onus is on them to show that they, in fact, have done this.  The courts will not presume in the owner's favour if they fail to keep such records.  In this case, the Court went so far as to presume against the Government, not only in terms of deciding whether the tender process was fair and transparent, but also in the calculation of damages.

Finally, this case adds to the growing body of cases that suggests governments generally cannot, for public policy reasons, contract out of their own legislation, regulations, or directives in their public calls for bids.  Some case law has come to the same conclusion in regards to private actors. Statutorily implied terms in calls for tenders may be binding regardless of attempts to contract out if the court concludes that they fall within the category of enactments which may not be waived or varied by private contract.  This will generally be the case for provisions which have a strong public policy objective.


1 M.J.B. Enterprises Ltd. v. Defence Construction (1951) Ltd., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 619; for further discussion on the types of calls for bids that will attract a Contract A analysis and those that will not, see "Recent Trial Decision Discusses Calls for Bids vs RFPs" in our November 2017 issue.

2 Martel Building Ltd. v. Canada, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 860.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions