Complainant HP Co. filed complaint with Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT). Shared Services Canada (SSC) brought motion alleging that CITT lacked jurisdiction to hear complaint. CITT dismissed SSC’s motion in preliminary decision and dismissed complainant’s complaint on merits of decision. Crown brought application for judicial review of preliminary decision on jurisdiction. CITT, as intervenor, brought motion to dismiss application for judicial review because it was moot. Motion granted and application for judicial review dismissed. Crown acknowledged that application was moot. Discretion was not exercised to have matter heard. Fact that CITT would be defending its own decision did not weigh in favour of exercising discretion to hear matter. If matter was rare and may not arise again, this did not weigh in favour of exercising discretion to hear this case. If there were other occasions to raise this issue, there should be case where there was opposing party, other than CITT, to advance arguments opposed to those advanced by Crown on merits of judicial review application.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co. (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 6583, 2017 FCA 227, Marc Noël C.J., Johanne Trudel J.A., and Wyman W. Webb J.A. (F.C.A.); application for judicial review refused (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 25, 2017 CarswellNat 26, Serge Fréchette Presiding Member (C.I.T.T.).