Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. Amazon.com.ca ULC

Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. Amazon.com.ca ULC

The court applied the Rule 8/R.399 framework, found Amazon had shown sufficient need and evidence to extend certain deadlines to December 15, 2025 (specifically Schedule I specs 1(c), 2, 4, 5 and Schedule II specs 2 and 3) based on e-discovery processing, TAR and review timing, but concluded Amazon failed to demonstrate diligence or a reasonable explanation for extensions beyond December 15, 2025 for remaining specifications (1(d), 3, 6, 7 and Amazon Canada portions of 8 and 9 and Schedule II spec 1); further extensions would prejudice the public interest and were denied.

Citation
2025 FC 1782
Parties
Applicant (responding Party): Commissioner of Competition; Respondent (moving Party): Amazon.com.ca ULC
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 11 of the Competition Act (compulsory Production Order) / Motion to Vary Production Deadlines (rule 8 / Rule 399)
Outcome
Motion granted in part and denied in part
Legal Topics
Document Production, Extension of Time, Applicability of Federal Court Rules (rule 8 V Rule 399), Public Interest in Investigations, Privilege and Quality Control, Technology Assisted Review (tar)
Source Language
English
Competition Law Civil Procedure E Discovery Document Production Extension of Time Applicability of Federal Court Rules (rule 8 V Rule 399) Public Interest in Investigations Privilege and Quality Control +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commissioner of Competition

Applicant (responding Party)

Amazon.com.ca ULC

Respondent (moving Party)

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 11 of the Competition Act (compulsory Production Order) / Motion to Vary Production Deadlines (rule 8 / Rule 399)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 8 or Rule 399 governs a motion to vary timelines in an ex parte s.11 Competition Act order
  2. 2 Whether Amazon demonstrated diligence and a reasonable explanation to warrant extensions beyond the original 90/120 day deadlines
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner (and the public) would be prejudiced by extended timelines

Ratio Decidendi

The court applied the Rule 8/R.399 framework, found Amazon had shown sufficient need and evidence to extend certain deadlines to December 15, 2025 (specifically Schedule I specs 1(c), 2, 4, 5 and Schedule II specs 2 and 3) based on e-discovery processing, TAR and review timing, but concluded Amazon failed to demonstrate diligence or a reasonable explanation for extensions beyond December 15, 2025 for remaining specifications (1(d), 3, 6, 7 and Amazon Canada portions of 8 and 9 and Schedule II spec 1); further extensions would prejudice the public interest and were denied.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part and denied in part

Orders

  • Extend deadline to December 15, 2025 for production responsive to Schedule I specifications 1(c), 2, 4 and 5 and for written returns responsive to Schedule II specifications 2 and 3.
  • Requests for extensions beyond December 15, 2025 are denied; Amazon Canada must comply with the July Order timelines as modified to require production of all remaining documents responsive to Schedule I and Schedule II by December 15, 2025.