Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2026

We have prepared this report in the Ottawa-Gatineau region, the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg peoples. They have lived on this territory for millennia. Their culture and presence have nurtured this land and continue to do so. The Tribunal members and staff honour all First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada, their valuable past and their ongoing contributions to the land that we all share.

We invite you to join the journey to reconciliation and to learn more about all First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

We recognize that we still have much to do; reconciliation is an ongoing process for us all. Our goal is to contribute to reconciliation in a meaningful way.

Trade remedy inquiries

• The effects of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) duties applied to approximately $3.3 billion of imports and $17.2 billion of shipments in industries employing 43,728 people.

Procurement reviews

• The Tribunal received 91 complaints about federal government procurement processes estimated to represent over $337 million in federal contracts.

Customs and excise appeals

• Interesting products: speed ovens and convection microwave ovens, surgical table covers and different types of face masks.

Across all mandates

• Hearing days: 47
  • in-person: 6
  • virtual: 11
  • hybrid: 30
• File hearings: 102
• Decisions issued: 118
• Pages on the records: 600,467
• Over 126 witnesses appeared before the Tribunal in customs appeals and trade remedy inquiries, demonstrating the often-complex nature of these cases.

History of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal

The Tribunal has a long and rich history. 

Members of the Tribunal

The Tribunal may be composed of up to seven full-time permanent members, including the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson. In addition to their duties as a member of the Tribunal, the Chairperson assigns cases to members and manages the Tribunal’s work. Permanent members are appointed by the Governor in Council for a term of up to five years, which can be renewed once. Up to five temporary members may also be appointed. Members have a variety of educational backgrounds and experience.

Frédéric Seppey was the Chairperson of the Tribunal until December 31, 2025, when his term ended. Bree Jamieson-Holloway was appointed as Chairperson on March 19, 2026. In 2025-26, the Tribunal operated with seven permanent members and three temporary members. As of March 31, 2026, the Tribunal’s members are:

Susan Beaubien
(Permanent member, mandate effective until March 20, 2029)

Cheryl Beckett
(Permanent member, mandate effective until November 23, 2028)

Georges Bujold
(Permanent member, mandate effective until November 23, 2028)

Serge Fréchette
(Temporary part-time member, mandate effective until June 9, 2027)

Randolph W. Heggart
(Temporary full-time member, mandate effective until June 23, 2026)

Bree Jamieson-Holloway
(Chairperson, mandate effective until December 4, 2027)

Susana Lee
(Permanent member, mandate effective until January 28, 2029)

Elizabeth Whitsitt
(Permanent member, mandate effective until October 6, 2029)

Eric Wildhaber
(Temporary full-time member, mandate effective until July 24, 2028)

The support services to the Tribunal

The Tribunal is supported by employees of the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada (ATSSC).

The ATSSC is responsible and accountable for providing support services and facilities to the Tribunal and to 12 other federal administrative tribunals. These services include the specialized services required to support the mandate of each tribunal (e.g., registry, legal services and trade investigation services for the CITT), as well as internal services (human resources, financial services, information management and technology, accommodation, security, planning and communications).

Registry services

The registry team ensures the effective management of the administrative processes related to the Tribunal’s mandates. It provides administrative support to the Tribunal to ensure that cases are handled as informally and expeditiously as possible. The registry team also liaises between the Tribunal and parties to a proceeding. Its main responsibilities are to:

• communicate with parties on behalf of the Tribunal;
• compile the exhibits on behalf of the Tribunal to produce the official case record;
• manage the logistics of the Tribunal’s in-person, virtual and hybrid hearings; and
• issue decisions on behalf of the Tribunal. 

Trade remedies investigations branch

The trade remedies investigations branch (TRIB) is composed of data services advisors and economic analysts. TRIB supports the Tribunal by providing economic data and analysis in dumping and subsidizing cases, primarily by developing questionnaires and using the information received to produce investigation reports on the market for the goods under investigation. TRIB also provides economic advice and analysis to Tribunal members on discrete economic issues that arise in the course of investigations and deliberations.

Editing services

The Editing services team edits and translates Tribunal decisions as well as various documents. It also publishes content on the Tribunal’s website and prepares communication products.

Legal services

The legal services team provides legal research and advice to members in support of the Tribunal’s mandates, as well as various legal support services in the conduct of proceedings before the Tribunal.

Canada’s trade remedy system under the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) is bifurcated. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) is responsible for determining whether imports of goods into Canada:

• have been sold at prices lower than the price of similar goods in the foreign producer’s home market or at prices that do not cover costs and a reasonable amount for profits (dumping); or
• have benefited from certain types of government grants or other assistance from foreign governments (subsidizing).

The Tribunal is responsible for determining whether the dumping or subsidizing has caused injury or threat of injury to the domestic industry or has caused delay to the establishment of a domestic industry. The CBSA may collect anti-dumping and countervailing duties if a Canadian domestic industry is injured by the importation of dumped and subsidized goods into Canada.

Special Import Measures Act process chart

The following diagram illustrates the investigative process under the Special Import Measures Act.

Injury inquiries

Preliminary injury inquiries (PI)

The CBSA generally initiates a dumping or subsidizing investigation following a complaint from a domestic producer. If the CBSA initiates a dumping or subsidizing investigation, the Tribunal initiates a preliminary injury inquiry under SIMA.

In a preliminary injury inquiry, the Tribunal determines whether the evidence discloses a reasonable indication that the dumping or subsidizing has caused injury or retardation or is threatening to cause injury.

If there’s no reasonable indication that the dumping or subsidizing has caused injury or retardation or is threatening to cause injury, the Tribunal terminates the inquiry, and the CBSA terminates the dumping or subsidizing investigation. The Tribunal issues a determination, within 60 days of the initiation of the preliminary injury inquiry, and reasons.

Final injury inquiries (NQ)

If the CBSA makes a preliminary determination of dumping or subsidizing, the Tribunal commences a final injury inquiry pursuant to SIMA. The CBSA may levy provisional duties on imports from the date of the preliminary determination, and it continues its investigation until it makes a final determination of dumping or subsidizing.

The Tribunal must issue its finding of injury within 120 days from the date of the CBSA’s preliminary determination of dumping or subsidizing. The Tribunal has an additional 15 days to issue reasons supporting its finding. A Tribunal finding of injury or retardation or threat of injury to a domestic industry is required for the imposition of definitive anti-dumping or countervailing duties by the CBSA. The finding remains in place for up to five years.

Expiry reviews (RR)

Under SIMA, an order or a finding ordinarily expires after five years, unless it is continued by the Tribunal following the conduct of an expiry review. There are two phases in an expiry review.

The first phase is the investigation by the CBSA to determine whether there is a likelihood of resumed or continued dumping or subsidizing if the order or finding expires.

If the CBSA determines that such likelihood exists with respect to any of the goods, the second phase is the Tribunal’s inquiry into the likelihood of injury or retardation arising from the resumption or continuation of the dumping or subsidizing. If the CBSA determines that there is no likelihood of resumed dumping or subsidizing for any of the goods, the Tribunal issues an order rescinding the order or finding with respect to those goods.

Upon completion of an expiry review, the Tribunal issues an order with reasons, rescinding or continuing an order or finding, with or without amendment. If an order or finding is continued, it remains in force for a further five years, unless an interim review is initiated, and the order or finding is rescinded. If the order or finding is rescinded, imports are no longer subject to anti‑dumping or countervailing duties.

Historical trend: Dumping and subsidizing

The Tribunal continues to experience a long-term trend increase in SIMA-related activity, reaching historical highs in 2025-26, with elevated levels expected to persist through fiscal year 2026-27. This is due, in part, to a challenging global trade environment and a high percentage of inquiries and reviews that result in the imposition or the continuation of trade remedy measures. The following graph shows the evolution of the number of injury inquiries initiated over the past decade. 

The number of expiry reviews completed each year has gradually increased over a ten-year period, from an average of five expiry reviews for the 2016-21 period to just over six for the 2021-26 period. As shown in the following graph, this creates a cyclical but gradual upward trend pressure on the caseload of the Tribunal. For example, there are now 57 injury findings in force  as of March 31, 2026, all of which will come up for review within the next five years.

Interim reviews (RD)

An interim review is a proceeding through which the Tribunal may, at any time, reconsider its findings of injury or threat of injury, or other related orders on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister of Finance, the CBSA or any other interested person or government.

An interim review may be warranted where there is a reasonable indication that new facts have arisen or if the circumstances that led to the finding or order have changed. In an interim review, the Tribunal determines if the finding or order (or any aspect of it) should be rescinded or continued to its expiry date, with or without amendment.

Public interest inquiries (PB)

At the request of an interested person or on its own initiative, the Tribunal may initiate a public interest inquiry following an injury finding if the Tribunal is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to consider that the imposition of all or part of the duties may not be in the public interest. In cases where it concludes that such duties are not in the public interest, the Tribunal will issue a report to the Minister of Finance recommending that the duties be reduced and by how much.

Noteworthy decisions under the dumping and subsidizing mandate

Renewable Diesel (PI-2024-004)

On May 5, 2025, the Tribunal issued its preliminary determination of injury following its preliminary injury inquiry into the alleged injurious dumping and subsidizing of renewable diesel from the United States, following a complaint filed by Tidewater Renewables Ltd. with the CBSA. 

This case is notable because the Tribunal terminated the inquiry as the evidence did not disclose a reasonable indication of injury or threat of injury to Canadian producers of renewable diesel as a whole or to Canadian producers whose production constituted a major proportion of the total domestic production of renewable diesel.

Central to the Tribunal’s determination was the definition of “domestic industry” under subsection 2(1) of SIMA. Tidewater contended that the only other Canadian producer of renewable diesel, Braya Renewable Fuels LP (Braya), should not be included in the definition of domestic industry because it exported the entirety of its production. With Braya excluded from the definition of domestic industry, Tidewater proceeded to argue that its production of renewable diesel constituted a major proportion of total production of Canadian renewable diesel.

The Tribunal ultimately disagreed. First, the Tribunal held that all Canadian producers of renewable diesel must be included in defining the domestic industry, regardless of whether their production is sold domestically or exported. Having so found, the Tribunal also determined that Tidewater, which accounted for 34.2% of Canadian renewable diesel production, did not represent a “major proportion” of domestic production. In this instance, Braya produced the majority of Canada’s renewable diesel.

As a result, there was no reasonable indication that any injury alleged by Tidewater was material to the domestic industry as a whole, so the Tribunal terminated the inquiry.

Certain Carbon or Alloy Steel Wire (NQ-2025-003)

The Tribunal conducted a final injury inquiry under section 42 of SIMA to determine whether dumped imports of certain carbon or alloy steel wire caused injury to the Canadian domestic industry.

The Tribunal found injury for one class of goods (Industrial Wire), but no injury for another (Retail Wire). It also addressed whether imports from certain countries were negligible and ruled on multiple product exclusion requests.

Classes of goods

The Tribunal determined that the subject goods must be divided into two distinct classes, each requiring a separate injury analysis: Industrial Wire and Retail Wire.

The Tribunal concluded that Industrial Wire and Retail Wire are not “like goods”, as they differ in physical characteristics, packaging, end uses, distribution channels, customers and pricing, and they are not substitutable. Because there is no domestic production of Retail Wire, there is no domestic industry for that class. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that dumped Retail Wire could not have caused injury or threat of injury within the meaning of SIMA. As for Industrial Wire, the Tribunal found that the domestic industry suffered injury primarily in the form of decreased financial performance due to the volume and prices of the dumped imports.

Negligibility

Under SIMA, imports from a country are negligible if they account for less than 3% of total imports, unless imports from three or more low‑volume countries together exceed 7%.

In this case, the Tribunal found that imports from China and Türkiye individually exceeded the 3% threshold. Although imports from eight other subject countries were each below 3%, they collectively exceeded 7%. The Tribunal concluded that imports from those countries were not negligible and continued the inquiry for all subject countries.

Exclusions

The Tribunal considered 13 product exclusion requests, emphasizing that exclusions are an exceptional remedy requiring positive evidence that imports would not cause injury. It denied most exclusion requests because the domestic industry currently produces, or is capable of producing, identical or substitutable goods. However, it granted one exclusion, with the consent of the domestic industry. Retail Wire exclusions requests were moot, given the finding of no injury for that class.

Thermal Paper Rolls (NQ-2025-004)

The Tribunal conducted a final injury inquiry under section 42 of SIMA into the dumping and subsidizing of thermal paper rolls from China. It found that the dumped and subsidized imports caused material injury to the Canadian domestic industry and that the conditions for massive importation were not met.

A central issue in this case was whether Canadian producers qualify as domestic producers of like goods, given that Canada does not manufacture thermal paper jumbo rolls. Jumbo rolls are extremely large industrial inputs and are expressly excluded from the CBSA’s product definition. The subject goods, and the like goods, are finished thermal paper rolls up to 15 cm in width, used primarily in point‑of‑sale terminals.

The Tribunal rejected Multi‑Tact’s argument that Canadian producers merely “finish” imported goods. Although SIMA does not define “production,” the Tribunal adopted a textual, contextual and purposive interpretation consistent with the object of SIMA. It found that converting jumbo rolls into finished thermal paper rolls constitutes production.

The Tribunal emphasized that jumbo rolls are feedstock with no consumer use, while finished thermal paper rolls are a distinct downstream product. Further, the conversion process requires industrial machinery, capital investment and skilled labour, and transforms jumbo rolls into goods that are commercially usable, saleable and acceptable for consumption in Canada. The same type of conversion process is used by producers in China.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the complainants are domestic producers of like goods, account for a major proportion of Canadian production, and therefore constitute the domestic industry. It concluded that the dumping and subsidizing of thermal paper rolls from China caused material injury, primarily through significant price undercutting, lost sales, declining market share, reduced capacity utilization, and worsening financial performance. The Tribunal made no finding of injury caused by massive importation.

Concrete Reinforcing Bar (PB‑2024‑002 and PB‑2024‑003)

In this decision, the Tribunal considered whether to initiate a public interest inquiry under section 45 of SIMA following its finding that dumped imports of concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from Bulgaria, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates caused injury to the Canadian domestic industry.

Two requests were made: one by a Bulgarian rebar producer and one by the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine. Both parties sought relief from anti‑dumping duties on Bulgarian rebar.

Under section 45 of SIMA, the Tribunal may initiate a public interest inquiry only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that imposing duties would not or might not be in the Canadian public interest. The Tribunal decided not to initiate a public interest inquiry, emphasizing that such proceedings are exceptional and require a prima facie case, supported by evidence, that the duties may give rise to unintended consequences beyond the normal, intended effects of anti-dumping duties (such as higher prices or reduced imports). The requesters bear the burden of establishing the prima facie case.

In summary:

• The Tribunal found no evidence that the duties would adversely affect supply, competition, downstream industries or consumers in Canada. Assertions of harm were largely speculative and unsupported.
• While Canada’s support for Ukraine was acknowledged, the Tribunal held that any indirect effects on Ukraine through a third-country exporter were too remote and insufficiently connected to impacts within Canada to engage the public interest.
• The Tribunal also noted that it lacks jurisdiction to revisit dumping margins or grant exemptions under SIMA, and that no Canadian importers, users or consumers supported the request.

Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the imposition of duties would be contrary to the Canadian public interest, and no inquiry was initiated.

The Tribunal hears and decides appeals of decisions of the President of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the Minister of National Revenue.

1) Appeals filed under the Customs Act (AP)

Appeals filed under the Customs Act relate to a range of issues:

• appropriate classification of imports according to the Customs Tariff;
• appropriate manner in which to calculate the value for duty of imports;
• determination of where imports originated before they entered Canada; and
• importation of prohibited goods (such as certain pocketknives and weapons).

There were 33 appeals filed under the Customs Act in 2025-26.

2) Appeals filed under the Special Import Measures Act (EA)

Appeals filed under the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) relate to two key issues:

• whether certain goods fall within the scope of trade remedy measures; and
• whether the CBSA properly calculated the margin of dumping, amount of subsidy or export price for certain imports.

Twenty-one appeals were filed under SIMA in 2025-26, marking, by far, the highest number ever received in a single fiscal year.

3) Appeals filed under the Excise Tax Act (AP)

Appeals filed under the Excise Tax Act relate to an assessment or a determination of excise tax.

No appeals were filed under this act in 2025-26.

4) Extensions of time (EP)

Under the Customs Act, a person may apply to the Tribunal for an extension of time to file a request for a re-determination or a further re-determination with the CBSA. The Tribunal may grant such an application after the CBSA has refused an application or when 90 days have elapsed after the application was made and the person has not been notified of the CBSA’s decision. A person may also apply to the Tribunal for an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal.

There were 3 requests for an extension of time filed before the Tribunal in 2025-26.

Historical trend: Appeals received

The Tribunal’s caseload for its customs and excise appeals mandate remains relatively consistent with historical trends for the last ten years. 

Appeals received, heard and scheduled

During the fiscal year, the Tribunal received 57 appeals. Ninety-one appeal cases were outstanding at the end of the fiscal year. Of that number, 11 were in abeyance at the request of the parties, often because parties were attempting to negotiate a settlement or were awaiting the outcome of another related appeal before the Tribunal. The remaining 80 matters were all progressing.

Noteworthy decisions under the customs and excise appeals mandate

Atrium Innovations Inc. (AP‑2021‑032 and AP‑2022‑026) and Nature’s Way of Canada Limited (AP‑2022‑041)

These decisions clarify the relationship between the Customs Tariff, World Customs Organization Harmonized System Explanatory Notes and Canadian jurisprudence. They also address jurisdiction, mootness, and further identifies what can constitute implied decisions by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

Core classification issue

The central issue in the appeals was the CBSA’s claim that 2019 amendments to the WCO Explanatory Notes changed the legal test for classifying goods as “medicaments” under tariff heading 30.04. The CBSA argued that, after the amendments, products such as fish oil capsules, omega‑3 supplements, ashwagandha, and coenzyme Q‑10 should be classified as food preparations under heading 21.06 unless their scientific efficacy was proven.

The Tribunal rejected that position. It held that the Customs Tariff is the governing law and that the long‑standing Canadian “plausible use” test remains the legal standard. Under that test, goods qualify as medicaments if they are recognizable as products for therapeutic or prophylactic use, without requiring proof of clinical efficacy.

Interpretation of the Explanatory Notes

The Tribunal emphasized that the Explanatory Notes are non‑binding interpretive aids that cannot amend legislation or overturn binding jurisprudence unless explicitly incorporated into Canadian law under subsection 14(1) of the Customs Tariff. As a result, the amendments were inoperative in Canada.

Jurisdiction and mootness

The Tribunal also rejected the CBSA’s jurisdictional and mootness arguments. It confirmed that CBSA decisions may contain implied determinations with ongoing effects, that the Tribunal has de novo jurisdiction over the entire customs accounting decision (classification, origin and value for duty), and that an importer remains “aggrieved” where CBSA directions continue to affect future importations.

Outcome

In these cases, the Tribunal held that the goods were medicaments under heading 30.04 and ordered refunds of duties. The decisions reaffirm the primacy of statutory text and settled jurisprudence over administrative reinterpretation.

These decisions are under appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. 

Major Pipe & Supply Ltd. (EA‑2024‑004)

This decision answers a recurring jurisdictional question under the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA): what happens when the CBSA fails to issue a re‑determination within the one‑year timeline set out in subsection 59(3)?

Major Pipe & Supply Ltd. (MPS) argued that the CBSA’s failure to meet the one‑year deadline shouldstrip the President of authority to act, require the Tribunal to terminate the re‑determination and appeal process, and result in an immediate refund of anti‑dumping duties. In the alternative, MPS argued that the delay constituted a “non‑decision” appealable to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal rejected both arguments.

First, the Tribunal held that subsection 59(3) of SIMA is directory, not mandatory. Although the provision uses the word “shall”, SIMA does not specify any consequence for non‑compliance, and Parliament did not intend the President to lose jurisdiction because of delay. As a result, the President may validly issue a re‑determination after the one‑year period has expired. The Tribunal also confirmed that it has no authority to terminate the statutory re‑determination and appeal process or to order refunds before a proper re‑determination is made.

The Tribunal emphasized that SIMA serves a broader public purpose beyond resolving disputes with importers. Its central objective is protecting domestic producers. Ending the process due to administrative delay would undermine that purpose and prejudice parties who have no control over CBSA timelines.

Second, the Tribunal held that the mere passage of time does not give rise to an appealable “non‑decision” under SIMA. SIMA contains no deeming provision that treats delay as a refusal or negative decision. In doing so, the Tribunal expressly declined to follow earlier Customs Act cases (notably, Frito‑Lay and Wolseley) that had characterized delay as a reviewable non‑decision.

Finally, the Tribunal clarified that the appropriate remedy for excessive delay is an application to the Federal Court for a writ of mandamus compelling the President to act.

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 (11 out of 243 or 4.53%) of the Tribunal decisions were appealed to a reviewing court.

Judicial reviews of Special Import Measures Act cases 

One application for judicial review was filed with the FCA on February 2, 2026, regarding the Tribunal’s finding in Carbon or Alloy Steel Wire (NQ-2025-003).

Judicial reviews of procurement complaints

A total of five Tribunal decisions were challenged before the Federal Court of Appeal during this fiscal year. One of these applications was since discontinued by the applicant, and four remain outstanding at the end of the fiscal year.

During this fiscal year, four applications for judicial review of Tribunal decisions filed in a previous fiscal year came to a close. The FCA dismissed the application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in Hakson Safety Wears Inc. v. Department of Public Works and Government Services (PR-2024-024). The FCA allowed the application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in ADGA Group Consultants Inc. v. Department of Public Works and Government Services (PR-2024-038). Two further applications were discontinued by the applicants.

Appeals of Customs Act and Special Import Measures Act appeal decisions 

Three of the Tribunal’s decisions rendered this fiscal year under this mandate were challenged in the FCA.

During this fiscal year, the FCA rendered decisions on two proceedings initiated in previous years. The FCA allowed the appeal in B. Cooper. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency (AP-2022-039) and dismissed the application in Major Pipe & Supply Ltd. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency (EA-2024-004).

Anti-dumping duties

Duties in the form of a tax on imported goods that were dumped on the Canadian market and subject to a finding of injury of the Tribunal. The application of anti-dumping duties is intended to offset the amount of dumping on imported goods and give the goods produced in Canada an opportunity to compete fairly with the imported goods.

Countervailing duties

Duties in the form of a tax on imported goods that were subsidized and subject to a finding of injury of the Tribunal. The application of countervailing duties is intended to offset the amount of subsidizing on imported goods and give the goods produced in Canada an opportunity to compete fairly with the imported goods.

Decision, determination, finding and order

A decision is a judgment made by the Tribunal in the context of its mandates, including on any matter that arises during a proceeding.

A determination is a Tribunal decision resulting from a preliminary injury inquiry under the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) or an inquiry into a procurement complaint.

A finding is a Tribunal decision resulting from a final injury inquiry under SIMA.

An order is a Tribunal decision resulting from an expiry, an expiry review or an interim review. It can also be a procedural decision in any type of case under the Tribunal’s mandates.

Designated contract

A contract for the supply of goods or services that has been or is proposed to be awarded by a government institution.

Judicial review

A review of a Tribunal decision by the Federal Court of Appeal or Federal Court.

Potential supplier

A bidder or prospective bidder on a designated contract.

Quasi-judicial

A partly judicial character by having the right to hold hearings on and conduct investigations into disputed claims and alleged infractions of statutes and to make decisions in the general manner of courts.

Remand (verb)

To send a case to another court. A party displeased with a Tribunal decision can ask the Federal Court of Appeal to overturn it. The Court can overturn that decision itself or refer it back (“remand it”) to the Tribunal with or without instructions on how it should decide the matter again.