40
|
Big Suits
Tory, James C.
Torys LLP
(416) 865-7391
jctory@torys.com
Mr. Tory practises litiga-
tion and dispute reso-
lution, specializing in
corporate/commercial
matters, with a particu-
lar focus on shareholder
and boardroom dis-
putes. Experience in all
levels of court, the OSC,
and commercial arbitra-
tions and mediations.
Valasek, Martin J.
Norton Rose Fulbright
Canada LLP
(514) 847-4818
martin.valasek@nortonrose-
fulbright.com
Mr. Valasek's inter-
national practice em-
braces both commercial
and investor-State arbi-
tration (including NAFTA
Chapter 11), in sectors
such as aerospace, con-
struction, forestry, min-
ing and energy. He also
advises on cross-border
litigation matters.
Waddell, Margaret L.
Paliare Roland
Rosenberg
Rothstein LLP
(416) 646-4329
marg.waddell@paliareroland.
com
Ms. Waddell is a senior
partner of Paliare Ro-
land Rosenberg Roth-
stein LLP, and a leader
of the Class Action
practice group. She has
particular experience
and expertise in this
specialized field, where
she acts for both plain-
tiffs and defendants.
Tushinski, Paul
Dutton Brock LLP
(416) 593-4411
ptushinski@duttonbrock.com
Mr. Tushinski has been
certified as a Specialist
in Civil Litigation by the
LSUC since 1995.
He is ranked by Lexpert
as one of the most
frequently recom-
mended lawyers in Can-
ada in both Commercial
Litigation - Insurance
and Personal Injury -
Defence.
Van Barr,
Christopher C.
Gowling Lafleur
Henderson LLP
(613) 786-8675
christopher.vanbarr@gowl-
ings.com
Mr. Van Barr is a lead IP
trial counsel and appeal
counsel, appearing in
courts across Canada.
Practises exclusively
in IP Litigation with
emphasis on complex
patent litigation. Exper-
tise also in trade-mark,
copyright and trade
secret litigation.
Wakil, Omar K.
Torys LLP
(416) 865-7635
owakil@torys.com
Mr. Wakil advises do-
mestic and international
clients on all aspects
of competition law
under the Competition
Act, and on net benefit
and national security
reviews under the In-
vestment Canada Act.
Rather, PDM simply relied on the wrong clause in extend-
ing the agreement. e Court rejected this argument, find-
ing that courts have broad jurisdiction to grant relief from
forfeiture in a wide range of cases, including cases involving
failure to renew a lease.
As to whether to grant relief, the Court found that there
was no basis for interfering with the application judge's exer-
cise of discretion granting relief.
WeirFoulds LLP acted for ree Pines Creations Inc. and
Louise Penny. e team consisted of Kenneth Prehogan and
Hilary Book, with assistance from Tony Duarte of Duarte
Spiel LLP and Christopher Reed of Laishley Reed LLP.
Scott Martin and Marco Falco of Torkin Manes LLP
acted for PDM Entertainment Inc.
Jury issues "not guilty" verdicts in R. v. Durward
Decision date: April 27, 2015
On April 27, 2015, a jury delivered 60 "not guilty" verdicts
thereby acquitting six individuals and three corporations
who stood accused of bid-rigging under s. 47(1)(b) of the
Competition Act and s. 465(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.
e eight-month-long trial before the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice that preceded this verdict was one of the
largest proceedings of this nature in Canadian history.
e trial addressed issues in competition and procure-
ment law that had little to no precedent.
e charges related to ten Requests for Proposals (RFPs)
issued by Public Works and Government Services Canada
(PWGSC), Transport Canada (TC) and the Canada Bor-
der Services Agency (CBSA) in the summer and fall of 2005.
e Competition Bureau initiated an investigation in 2005
and subsequently laid charges in February 2009.
Had the individuals and companies been found guilty,
they faced possible imprisonment of up to five years, debar-
ment from conducting any business with the federal govern-
ment for up to 10 years and major fines.
e trial involved around half-a-million pages of docu-
ments and was held in a specially designed electronic court-
room. Due to the length of the proceeding, many of the
accused could not afford a lawyer, were self-represented and
relied on other trial counsel to lead the defence.
In her 300-page charge to the jury, which forms the only
legal "decision" arising from the trial (as juries deliver no rea-
sons), Justice Bonnie Warkentin provided important guid-
ance in this area of the law. ere were four general questions
that were put to the jury:
1) Was the RFP a "call for bids or tenders"?
2) Did the accused honestly but albeit mistakenly
believe that the RFP was not "call for bids or tenders"?
3) Was the bid or tender "arrived at by agreement
or arrangement"?
4) Was the agreement or arrangement "made known
to the person calling for the bids or tenders at or before
the time when they were submitted"?
On the first question, Justice Warkentin turned to prin-
ciples in procurement law, particularly the Contract A/B
paradigm, to find that not every RFP could result in a call for
bids or tenders. Instead, the parties had to intend for there
to be a contract resulting from the process in order for the
process to be a true "call for bids or tenders," and therefore to
fall under the Act.
Second, turning to the well-established criminal law prin-
ciple of mistake of fact, Justice Warkentin found that if the
accused had an honest but mistaken belief that the RFPs
LEXPERT®Ranked Lawyers
