Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Constructions Unibec inc. sought judicial review of Ville de Saguenay's October 2, 2025 municipal council resolution endorsing an unsatisfactory performance evaluation.
• Procedural fairness was the central issue, with Unibec alleging a lack of prior written notice and an absence of a gradation of sanctions before the evaluation was issued.
• Natural justice was also contested, as Unibec claimed it was denied a fair hearing and that the evaluation committee lacked impartiality.
• Despite the absence of the prescribed Annex 11.11 form, the court found that Unibec was able to meaningfully participate in the decision-making process by submitting detailed written comments on September 18, 2025.
• Graduated sanctions, as argued by Unibec, were found to have no basis in either the contract, the City's procurement policy, or the applicable municipal legislation.
• Reasonableness of the decision was upheld, as Unibec failed to demonstrate that the City's evaluation was irrational, incoherent, or unjustifiable on the facts.

Facts of the case

Constructions Unibec inc. (Unibec) is a general contractor that has operated in the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean region for over 30 years. On May 10, 2021, Ville de Saguenay (the City) issued a public call for tenders for the construction of a new recyclable materials sorting centre. Unibec was awarded Contract No. 2021-098 on August 5, 2021, for a total of $30,892,300.00, taxes included. The project was completed with more than two years of delay; a provisional acceptance certificate was issued only on January 22, 2025, and it was issued with reservations. In a separate proceeding before the same court, Unibec is claiming $11,483,489.19 in damages against the City for cost overruns, delays, and additional work.

On August 20, 2025, Unibec received a performance evaluation document from the City in respect of Contract No. 2021-098, citing various contractual deficiencies and organizational shortcomings. By letter from its counsel dated September 18, 2025, Unibec submitted detailed written comments contesting the evaluation. On October 7, 2025, Unibec was informed that the City's municipal council had, on October 2, 2025, endorsed the unsatisfactory performance evaluation. The City's letter advised Unibec that it had been added to the list of contractors with unsatisfactory performance and that the City reserved the right to refuse its bids for a period of two years. Unibec subsequently filed for judicial review, seeking annulment of the October 2, 2025 resolution.

Policy terms and contractual clauses at issue

The City's procurement policy, at article 3.3.9, sets out the full process for evaluating supplier performance. It provides that an unsatisfactory evaluation must be transmitted to the supplier no later than 60 days following the end of the contract, that the supplier has 30 days to submit written comments, and that the evaluation committee must review those comments before making a final recommendation to the executive committee for approval. The contract itself, at clause 11.11, mirrors these obligations and further specifies that the City may refuse a bid from a contractor who has received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation within the two preceding years. The evaluation grid annexed to the contract also contained a note specifying that a score of 1 (Very Unsatisfactory) or 2 (Unsatisfactory) could only be assigned if a prior written notice had been communicated to the contractor. The applicable statutory framework is found at article 573, paragraph 2.0.1 of the Loi sur les cités et villes, which sets out the conditions under which a municipality may use an unsatisfactory performance evaluation to exclude a bidder from a public tendering process.

Reasoning and analysis

The court addressed each of Unibec's five grounds for review in turn. On the question of procedural fairness, the court applied the correctness standard. While it acknowledged that Unibec did not receive the prescribed Annex 11.11 form before the evaluation was issued, it found that this omission caused no actual prejudice. The evidence — including sworn declarations from Karl Bouchard, the designated evaluator, and Me Patricia Girard, the City's counsel — demonstrated that Unibec had been repeatedly notified of performance concerns throughout the contract. Moreover, Unibec was able to submit a detailed written response on September 18, 2025, which was considered by the evaluation committee before any final recommendation was made. The court noted an internal inconsistency in Unibec's position: in its civil damages claim filed August 29, 2025, Unibec had itself acknowledged receiving the evaluation and stated its intention to submit comments within the required timelines, contradicting its assertion in the judicial review proceeding that it had been deprived of the opportunity to respond.

On the argument regarding gradation of sanctions, the court found no legal basis for importing this labour law concept into the administrative context of municipal performance evaluations. Neither the contract, the City's procurement policy, nor article 573, paragraph 2.0.1 of the Loi sur les cités et villes required a progressive escalation of sanctions prior to issuing an unsatisfactory evaluation. The court noted that jurisprudence on the application of graduated sanctions in administrative law, as opposed to penal or disciplinary regimes, remains highly uncertain. On the issue of a fair hearing, the court confirmed, following Baker and Construction Socam ltée c. Ville de Laval (2022 QCCS 4458), that procedural fairness does not require an in-person hearing before a municipal council. The City's written submission process was found to constitute a sufficient and fair opportunity for Unibec to present its case. On the impartiality argument, the court held that Unibec's objections went to the substance of the evaluation rather than to procedural fairness, and that no evidence of actual bias on the part of the evaluation committee was established.

On the timing argument — that the evaluation had not been issued within 60 days of the end of the contract — the court found that the contract defined the end of the contract as the last date of expiry of the 12-month minimum warranty period under article 0.01.18, not the date of provisional acceptance. Since the January 22, 2025 provisional acceptance was itself issued with reservations, it could not be treated as the end of the contract. Finally, applying the reasonableness standard to the merits of the evaluation, the court deferred to the City's findings. Unibec bore the burden of demonstrating that the decision suffered from serious and fundamental flaws, and it failed to do so. The court found the evaluation to be transparent, intelligible, and justified on both the legal and factual record.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Superior Court of Québec, per the Honourable Damien St-Onge J.C.S., dismissed Unibec's application for judicial review of the City's October 2, 2025 resolution in its entirety. Ville de Saguenay was the successful party. No monetary award or damages were granted in the proceeding; the court ordered costs against Unibec (avec frais de justice), though no specific amount for costs was stated in the judgment.