In a judgment rendered on August 4, 2025, the Quebec Superior Court overturned a company's listing in the Register of Enterprises Ineligible for Public Contracts (the "Register"). The Court ordered that the Autorité des marchés publics ("AMP") re-examine the corrective measures available under the Act respecting contracting by public bodies (the "Act").1
The Superior Court's judgment, delivered by Justice Manon Lavoie, confirms that in cases where companies fail to meet integrity standards, the AMP should normally encourage rehabilitation by imposing corrective measures. Only in exceptional cases may the AMP depart from this principle.
Background of the Case
The company sought judicial review after the AMP denied its authorization to contract or subcontract with public bodies, and registered it in the Register for five years. The AMP considered that the company did not meet the integrity standards set out by the Act for two reasons: (i) the company denied the involvement of an individual as an officer, while the AMP considered that the individual did occupy such a role, and (ii) the company had not obtained the required authorization prior to entering into a public construction subcontract exceeding the Act's regulatory threshold, and had concealed this from the AMP.
Although the company had proposed several corrective measures – and had even hired an independent firm to develop a corrective plan – the AMP determined that no corrective measure would allow the company to meet the integrity standards. The AMP therefore registered the company to the Register and barred it from entering into public contracts for five years.
Key Points from the Superior Court's Judgment
Although the Court acknowledged the AMP's broad discretion in assessing integrity, given its extensive expertise in this area, it emphasized that this discretion must be exercised within the Act's legal framework and must comply with procedural fairness.
The Court highlighted the use of the term "must" in section 21.48.4 of the Act, concluding that the legislator's intention was that the AMP be required to consider corrective measures. In this case, even if the AMP could reasonably conclude that the company failed to meet integrity standards, it could not simply refuse to consider corrective measures.
The Court also specified that the AMP, as an administrative authority, must comply with the procedural obligations set out in section 5 of the Act respecting administrative justice.2 The AMP must give the company an opportunity to make representations by informing it in advance if it deems that all corrective measures that could be imposed under the Act are inadmissible.
For these reasons, the Court returned the case to the AMP, ordering it to conduct a new individualized review of possible corrective measures. The AMP's revised decision must comprehensively justify the reasons why, if applicable, the AMP considers that no corrective measure can be implemented, and must refer to the applicable legal framework.
However, the AMP has appealed this judgment. It will be interesting to follow the developments in this case.
Footnotes
1. CQLR c C-65.1
2. CQLR c J-3.
To view the original article click here
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.
