- 注册
- 2002-10-07
- 消息
- 402,199
- 荣誉分数
- 76
- 声望点数
- 0
Say this about Don Powell, the owner of TPG Technology: he is relentless.
Two years after he and a multitude of technology consultants were acquitted of 60 charges of rigging bids to win technology contracts with the federal government, Powell on Thursday launched a $30-million civil claim against government investigators.
He was joined in this by two colleagues — Sue Laycock and Marina Durward — as well as TPG and Spearhead Management Canada, which is also owned by Powell.
The five plaintiffs are also seeking $13 million from Shaun Pritchard, the former vice-president of sales for Ridge Falls House. It was Pritchard’s 2005 complaint to Public Works about computer services contracts at the Canada Border Services Agency that provided a trigger for a decade’s worth of investigations and litigation.
Public Works kicked the complaint to the Competition Bureau, the federal agency responsible for enforcing competition rules. The Bureau prepared its case and forwarded it to federal Crown prosecutor Denis Pilon.
Early in 2009, the Crown laid more than 150 charges of bid rigging and related charges against 14 individuals and seven companies. Most of the charges were dropped or tossed out along the way.
The Bureau late Thursday had not yet been served with the suit and would for now decline comment, said spokeswoman Marie-France Faucher. However, the government is expected to put up a defence, not least because it does not want to weaken the powers of Bureau investigators. The Bureau only last month unveiled a strategy for fighting “fraud, collusion and corruption in federal contracts.”
Powell’s statement of claim targets five current and former officials with the Competition Bureau, the federal agency that conducted the investigation. The Bureau’s current commissioner, John Pecman, is named, as is the former commissioner, Melanie Aitken, and Sheridan Scott, a senior official.
However, the main focus of the suit appears to be the two investigators who prepared the case that wrongdoing occurred. The document cites 36 “particulars of negligence” involving Stephen Fitzpatrick and Colette Morin-Wade. These range from an alleged failure to properly understand the nature of the computer services industry and government contracting to an alleged failure to consult witnesses other than those who were Powell’s competitors.
The statement of claim alleges Morin-Wade had “little or no formal training” before she began her investigation and that neither she nor Fitzpatrick received instruction about an investigator’s duty to remain objective and interview “all relevant witnesses.”
The plaintiffs are arguing that more due diligence on the part of all players involved — Pritchard, Public Works officials and Bureau investigators — would have put a quick end to an unfounded procurement complaint. The statement of claim also alleges the investigators “intended to injure the plaintiffs.”
Powell and his colleagues had formed teams in 2005 to bid on more than $60 million worth of computer services contracts at the Canada Border Services Agency, Transport Canada and Public Works. In doing so, they exchanged information about consultants’ daily rates, which is permitted under government contract rules. But the Crown, which based its trial strategy on evidence collected by the Bureau, produced no evidence of collusion over setting the price of the final bids.
The plaintiffs argue in their statement of claim they are now owed significant sums for the loss of income and reputation they suffered while the stigma of criminal charges hung over them.
Here’s how the claims break down. From the Competition Bureau, the two corporate plaintiffs are seeking $12.5 million for loss of income while Laycock and Durward are suing for loss of income and commissions of $4 million and $2 million respectively. The two women lost their former jobs after they were charged in 2009.
The five plaintiffs are demanding $1 million each for punitive damages. The other sums sought relate to legal fees and damages for “negligent investigation,” “abuse of public office” and “loss of reputation.”
The vast majority of the $13,050,000 claim against Shaun Pritchard has to do with alleged “economic losses.” Pritchard declined comment.
jbagnall@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/JamesBagnall1
THE TIMELINE:
2005
June to October: Series of requests for proposals issued for the provision of information technology services at Canada Border Services Agency, Transport and Public Works.
Summer: Ridge Falls House of Ottawa, a supplier, complains to Public Works about the process.
Sept. 7: Public Works contacts Competition Bureau, which begins to investigate.
2006
Sept. 12: Search warrants are executed to search the offices of TPG Technology and other Ridge Falls House competitors.
2008
June 30: Competition Bureau sends letters to TPG and others, warning that charges of bid rigging are imminent.
July 2: Bureau refers matter to Director of Public Prosecutions.
Dec. 23: Public Works tells companies they will be barred from future business when charges are laid. TPG lawyers convince the department to back track, arguing this amounts to presumption of guilt.
2009
Feb. 17: Bureau announces criminal bid-rigging and conspiracy charges against 14 individuals and seven companies. Barry Dowdall, Marina Durward, Perry Henningsen, Shannon Lambert, Susan Laycock, Wendie Loudon, Theodore Martin, Philip McDonald, Kevin O’Rourke, David Gelineau, Don Powell, Thomas Townsend, Ronald Walker, David Watts, Brainhunter Inc., The Devon Group Ltd., Donna Cona Inc., Nortak Software Ltd., Tipacimowin Technology Inc., Spearhead Management Canada Ltd. and TPG Technology.
Feb. 23: Shannon Lambert pleads guilty to one count of bid rigging. She co-operates with the Crown in preparation for the upcoming criminal trial and receives a discharge. Judge signs order committing Veritaaq to implement a compliance program educating its employees about bid-rigging offences.
June 9: Theodore Martin, the former owner of TRM Technologies, pleads guilty, pays $25,000. TRM was not charged.
2010
Aug. 25: TPG president Don Powell files an amended claim against the Bureau for defamation, seeking $125 million in damages.
2011
Oct. 5: Ontario Superior Court Justice Ann Alder rules, after a preliminary inquiry, that the Competition Bureau’s bid-rigging case against several Ottawa-area companies should be heard at full trial. Alder dismisses charges against Kevin O’Rourke, Nortak Software, and Tipacimowin Technology for lack of evidence. Crown had earlier dropped charges against Wendie Loudon.
2012
July 18: Ontario Superior Court dismisses appeal of Alder’s ruling that the case should go to trial.
2013
April 2: Ontario Court of Appeal upholds Superior Court ruling.
June 19: Tipacimowin Technology launches constitutional challenge to section 47 of the Competition Act under section 7 of the Charter of Rights. Claims it’s “a vague law” that should be “struck down.” Challenge is later withdrawn.
2014
Sept. 8: Beginning of trial.
2015
Feb.: Judge Warkentin dismisses charges against David Watts in a directed verdict.
April: Crown stays conspiracy charges against six remaining individuals. Bid-rigging charges remain.
April 27: Jury acquits on all 60 remaining charges.
May 25: Crown says it won’t appeal the jury verdict. It also dropped its appeal against a directed verdict of not guilty for David Watts.
May 26: Crown stays proceedings against five remaining defendants who had elected to be tried by a judge rather than a jury.
查看原文...
Two years after he and a multitude of technology consultants were acquitted of 60 charges of rigging bids to win technology contracts with the federal government, Powell on Thursday launched a $30-million civil claim against government investigators.
He was joined in this by two colleagues — Sue Laycock and Marina Durward — as well as TPG and Spearhead Management Canada, which is also owned by Powell.
The five plaintiffs are also seeking $13 million from Shaun Pritchard, the former vice-president of sales for Ridge Falls House. It was Pritchard’s 2005 complaint to Public Works about computer services contracts at the Canada Border Services Agency that provided a trigger for a decade’s worth of investigations and litigation.
Public Works kicked the complaint to the Competition Bureau, the federal agency responsible for enforcing competition rules. The Bureau prepared its case and forwarded it to federal Crown prosecutor Denis Pilon.
Early in 2009, the Crown laid more than 150 charges of bid rigging and related charges against 14 individuals and seven companies. Most of the charges were dropped or tossed out along the way.
The Bureau late Thursday had not yet been served with the suit and would for now decline comment, said spokeswoman Marie-France Faucher. However, the government is expected to put up a defence, not least because it does not want to weaken the powers of Bureau investigators. The Bureau only last month unveiled a strategy for fighting “fraud, collusion and corruption in federal contracts.”
Powell’s statement of claim targets five current and former officials with the Competition Bureau, the federal agency that conducted the investigation. The Bureau’s current commissioner, John Pecman, is named, as is the former commissioner, Melanie Aitken, and Sheridan Scott, a senior official.
However, the main focus of the suit appears to be the two investigators who prepared the case that wrongdoing occurred. The document cites 36 “particulars of negligence” involving Stephen Fitzpatrick and Colette Morin-Wade. These range from an alleged failure to properly understand the nature of the computer services industry and government contracting to an alleged failure to consult witnesses other than those who were Powell’s competitors.
The statement of claim alleges Morin-Wade had “little or no formal training” before she began her investigation and that neither she nor Fitzpatrick received instruction about an investigator’s duty to remain objective and interview “all relevant witnesses.”
The plaintiffs are arguing that more due diligence on the part of all players involved — Pritchard, Public Works officials and Bureau investigators — would have put a quick end to an unfounded procurement complaint. The statement of claim also alleges the investigators “intended to injure the plaintiffs.”
Powell and his colleagues had formed teams in 2005 to bid on more than $60 million worth of computer services contracts at the Canada Border Services Agency, Transport Canada and Public Works. In doing so, they exchanged information about consultants’ daily rates, which is permitted under government contract rules. But the Crown, which based its trial strategy on evidence collected by the Bureau, produced no evidence of collusion over setting the price of the final bids.
The plaintiffs argue in their statement of claim they are now owed significant sums for the loss of income and reputation they suffered while the stigma of criminal charges hung over them.
Here’s how the claims break down. From the Competition Bureau, the two corporate plaintiffs are seeking $12.5 million for loss of income while Laycock and Durward are suing for loss of income and commissions of $4 million and $2 million respectively. The two women lost their former jobs after they were charged in 2009.
The five plaintiffs are demanding $1 million each for punitive damages. The other sums sought relate to legal fees and damages for “negligent investigation,” “abuse of public office” and “loss of reputation.”
The vast majority of the $13,050,000 claim against Shaun Pritchard has to do with alleged “economic losses.” Pritchard declined comment.
jbagnall@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/JamesBagnall1
THE TIMELINE:
2005
June to October: Series of requests for proposals issued for the provision of information technology services at Canada Border Services Agency, Transport and Public Works.
Summer: Ridge Falls House of Ottawa, a supplier, complains to Public Works about the process.
Sept. 7: Public Works contacts Competition Bureau, which begins to investigate.
2006
Sept. 12: Search warrants are executed to search the offices of TPG Technology and other Ridge Falls House competitors.
2008
June 30: Competition Bureau sends letters to TPG and others, warning that charges of bid rigging are imminent.
July 2: Bureau refers matter to Director of Public Prosecutions.
Dec. 23: Public Works tells companies they will be barred from future business when charges are laid. TPG lawyers convince the department to back track, arguing this amounts to presumption of guilt.
2009
Feb. 17: Bureau announces criminal bid-rigging and conspiracy charges against 14 individuals and seven companies. Barry Dowdall, Marina Durward, Perry Henningsen, Shannon Lambert, Susan Laycock, Wendie Loudon, Theodore Martin, Philip McDonald, Kevin O’Rourke, David Gelineau, Don Powell, Thomas Townsend, Ronald Walker, David Watts, Brainhunter Inc., The Devon Group Ltd., Donna Cona Inc., Nortak Software Ltd., Tipacimowin Technology Inc., Spearhead Management Canada Ltd. and TPG Technology.
Feb. 23: Shannon Lambert pleads guilty to one count of bid rigging. She co-operates with the Crown in preparation for the upcoming criminal trial and receives a discharge. Judge signs order committing Veritaaq to implement a compliance program educating its employees about bid-rigging offences.
June 9: Theodore Martin, the former owner of TRM Technologies, pleads guilty, pays $25,000. TRM was not charged.
2010
Aug. 25: TPG president Don Powell files an amended claim against the Bureau for defamation, seeking $125 million in damages.
2011
Oct. 5: Ontario Superior Court Justice Ann Alder rules, after a preliminary inquiry, that the Competition Bureau’s bid-rigging case against several Ottawa-area companies should be heard at full trial. Alder dismisses charges against Kevin O’Rourke, Nortak Software, and Tipacimowin Technology for lack of evidence. Crown had earlier dropped charges against Wendie Loudon.
2012
July 18: Ontario Superior Court dismisses appeal of Alder’s ruling that the case should go to trial.
2013
April 2: Ontario Court of Appeal upholds Superior Court ruling.
June 19: Tipacimowin Technology launches constitutional challenge to section 47 of the Competition Act under section 7 of the Charter of Rights. Claims it’s “a vague law” that should be “struck down.” Challenge is later withdrawn.
2014
Sept. 8: Beginning of trial.
2015
Feb.: Judge Warkentin dismisses charges against David Watts in a directed verdict.
April: Crown stays conspiracy charges against six remaining individuals. Bid-rigging charges remain.
April 27: Jury acquits on all 60 remaining charges.
May 25: Crown says it won’t appeal the jury verdict. It also dropped its appeal against a directed verdict of not guilty for David Watts.
May 26: Crown stays proceedings against five remaining defendants who had elected to be tried by a judge rather than a jury.
查看原文...
