United Grain (2002) - Reasons for Order of September 26, 2006 on motion by Agricore United for an interpretation of the consent agreement (public version)

United Grain (2002) - Reasons for Order of September 26, 2006 on motion by Agricore United for an interpretation of the consent agreement (public version)

Paragraph 50 of the Consent Agreement does not grant Agricore a right to seek directions from the Competition Tribunal about the Lease prior to a trustee proposing a divestiture; Agricore’s remedy under the Agreement is to object to a proposed divestiture on the grounds specified in paragraphs 17 and 30(b), which, if raised, bring the matter before the Tribunal under paragraph 32.

Citation
2006 Comp Trib 37
Parties
Applicant/responding Party: Commissioner of Competition; Respondent/moving Party: Agricore United
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Rescission or Variation of Consent Agreement or Order (mergers) / Interpretation Motion (paragraph 50)
Outcome
Motion denied
Legal Topics
Consent Agreement, Divestiture, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Lease, Trustee Sale
Source Language
English
Competition Law Mergers Contract Interpretation Consent Agreement Divestiture Tribunal Jurisdiction Lease Trustee Sale

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commissioner of Competition

Applicant/responding Party

Agricore United

Respondent/moving Party

Procedural Posture

Rescission or Variation of Consent Agreement or Order (mergers) / Interpretation Motion (paragraph 50)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 50 of the consent agreement permits Agricore to seek directions from the Competition Tribunal about a lease before a trustee proposes a divestiture
  2. 2 Whether Agricore may obtain an interpretation that amounts to pre-emptive directions regarding whether the Lease frustrates the Agreement
  3. 3 When Agricore’s right to object to a divestiture crystallizes under the Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 50 of the Consent Agreement does not grant Agricore a right to seek directions from the Competition Tribunal about the Lease prior to a trustee proposing a divestiture; Agricore’s remedy under the Agreement is to object to a proposed divestiture on the grounds specified in paragraphs 17 and 30(b), which, if raised, bring the matter before the Tribunal under paragraph 32.

Court Disposition

Motion denied

Orders

  • The motion is dismissed: Agricore has no right under the Agreement to seek directions from the Competition Tribunal regarding the Lease prior to a trustee proposing a divestiture.