Reasonable Grounds

Reasonable grounds is a legal threshold that appears throughout Canadian procurement—it's the level of justification needed before government officials can take certain actions. Think of it as more than a hunch but less than absolute proof. When an official has reasonable grounds to believe something, they have factual evidence or circumstances that would convince any sensible person in the same position.

How It Works

The concept shows up most prominently when the Procurement Ombudsman reviews government procurement practices. Under subsection 4(1) of the Procurement Ombudsman Regulations, the Ombudsman must determine there are reasonable grounds before launching a review. You'll see this language in actual practice reviews—for instance, when the Ombudsman investigated government-wide use of standing offers, or when examining bid evaluation processes across departments like PSPC and DND. The standard acts as a gate: it prevents arbitrary investigations while allowing action when evidence warrants it.

Here's the catch: reasonable grounds isn't defined with mathematical precision in the Government of Canada Supply Manual or most procurement policy documents. Instead, it functions as a legal standard borrowed from administrative law. The threshold requires objective facts—documents, patterns, testimony, or circumstances—that point toward a particular conclusion. In procurement, this might mean email chains showing irregularities, multiple complaints about an evaluation process, or documentation suggesting forced labour in a supply chain.

Officials must document their reasoning. If Health Canada believes on reasonable grounds that a product poses safety risks, or if a contracting authority suspects contract clause violations, they need to show their work. The standard protects both government decision-makers and suppliers—it demands evidence while allowing timely action before absolute certainty is reached.

Key Considerations

• Documentation is everything. If you're acting on reasonable grounds, you need a clear written record of the facts and logic supporting your belief. Vague concerns or institutional anxiety don't cut it.

• Context matters. What constitutes reasonable grounds for initiating a procurement review differs from what's needed to terminate a contract for cause. Higher-stakes decisions require stronger evidence, even within the same general standard.

• Third-party information counts. Reports from NGOs, media investigations, or international watchdogs can contribute to reasonable grounds, especially regarding supply chain issues like forced labour. You're not limited to information you've personally verified.

• Don't wait too long. The reasonable grounds standard exists partly to enable action before situations worsen. Waiting for absolute proof can defeat the purpose—but moving too quickly with insufficient basis creates legal risk.

Related Terms

Forced Labour, Contract Termination, Procurement Ombudsman

Sources

• Procurement Ombudsman: Review of Government-Wide Procurement Practices

• Government of Canada Supply Manual

• Canada Consumer Product Safety Act Quick Reference Guide

When you're evaluating whether reasonable grounds exist, ask yourself: would another experienced procurement professional, looking at the same facts, reach a similar conclusion? That's your benchmark.