Cameron MacDonald (R), and Antonio Utano, appear before Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) in February, 2024, on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.Dave Chan/The Globe and Mail
Two public servants linked to an internal investigation into the ArriveCan app and broader contracting matters are seeking an appeal of a recent Federal Court ruling.
Federal Court Justice Avvy Yao-Yao Go ruled against the two men last month, denying their requests for the court to overrule internal grievance findings and order a new, independent investigation.
Cameron MacDonald was ordered to pay the federal government more than $22,000 in legal costs, while Antonio Utano was required to pay nearly $19,500.
The two men worked together at the Canada Border Services Agency as senior officials responsible for IT matters in 2020 when the agency partnered with private contractors to develop and launch the ArriveCan app for cross-border travellers.
Mr. MacDonald later became an assistant deputy minister at Health Canada, while Mr. Utano moved to the Canada Revenue Agency as a director-general. Court records indicate they have been on paid leave as they challenge the CBSA’s investigative process.
The cost of the app project grew from an original $80,000 expense to more than $56-million, prompting reviews by the Auditor-General and other watchdogs, who later called for greater scrutiny over how federal departments award billions of dollars each year to federal contractors.
The CBSA prepared a draft Professional Standards Investigation Report in 2025 that contained “findings regarding several misconduct allegations” involving each of the two men, according to last month’s federal court ruling.
The allegations are not detailed in the court’s decisions, and the CBSA’s investigative findings have never been made public.
CBSA president Erin O’Gorman told MPs in 2024 that the agency had found a pattern of “persistent collaboration” between “certain officials” and GCStrategies, the two-person Ottawa-based IT company that was the main contractor on ArriveCan.
While not naming any officials, Ms. O’Gorman said at the time that the agency’s initial review of documents “show efforts to circumvent or ignore established procurement processes and roles and responsibilities” and that what the agency had found to date “is not okay.”
Both men challenged the CBSA’s internal investigation as procedurally unfair and filed grievances asking for the CBSA’s process to be shelved in favour of a new, independent review.
Those grievances were unsuccessful. The men sought judicial reviews of those grievance decisions by the Federal Court, which dismissed those requests last month. They are now asking the Federal Court of Appeal to review that decision.
The appeal request filed on behalf of Mr. MacDonald said the Federal Court judge “rendered an unreasonable decision by failing to meaningfully grapple with central issues raised by the appellant.”
Some of these issues include allegations made by the two men that they did not receive timely access to relevant documents, that the CBSA’s investigation was not independent and that they did not receive appropriate opportunities to respond to the issues raised in the CBSA’s investigation report.
Chris Spiteri, the lawyer representing Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano, had told the Federal Court that his clients will face disciplinary consequences if the final reports into their conduct are sent to their current employers.
Mr. Spiteri confirmed in an e-mail this week that both men have appealed last month’s rulings, but he did not provide any additional comment.
The CBSA did not say, when asked, whether it has sent its investigative findings to Health Canada and the CRA.
“The Canada Border Services Agency is aware that the applicants filed notices of appeal of the April 20, 2026, Federal court decision dismissing their applications for judicial review of the grievance decision. The CBSA will continue to defend the final-level grievance decisions made in these cases,” CBSA spokesperson Guillaume Bérubé said in an e-mail to The Globe and Mail this week in response to a request for comment.
Federal government lawyer Elizabeth Richards, chief general counsel for the Department of Justice, rejected the two men’s criticisms of the internal processes when she addressed the Federal Court in March, saying their allegations of bias “are based on mere suspicion, pure conjecture and insinuation.”