Martin - Reasons for Order and Order under Rule 119(3)

Martin - Reasons for Order and Order under Rule 119(3)

Grant in part and refuse in part: respondents granted leave under Rule 119(3) to file narrowly tailored factual responding evidence (Google: applicant relationship, general description of Google search products, distinctions among Google entities, limited factual overview of US District Court Proceedings including duration, number of witnesses and exhibits, and confirmation of intent to appeal/seek stay; Apple: transcript may be filed but redacted to contain only material relevant to whether Apple is a potential competitor under s.90.1(11) and whether the impugned agreement had a significant purpose under s.90.1(1.01)). Leave refused for broad, complex or merits‑related evidence...

Citation
2025 Comp Trib 12
Parties
Applicant: Alexander Martin; Respondent: Alphabet Inc.; Respondent: Google LLC; Respondent: Google Canada Corporation; Respondent: Apple Inc.; Respondent: Apple Canada Inc.
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Leave to Make Application Under S.103.1 of the Competition Act / Decision on Motions for Leave to Adduce Responding Evidence Under Rule 119(3) (reasons and Order)
Outcome
Motions granted in part and refused in part
Legal Topics
Leave to Commence Proceeding, Public Interest Standing, Responding Evidence, Market Definition, Section 90.1, Section 79
Source Language
English
Competition Law Antitrust Civil Procedure Leave to Commence Proceeding Public Interest Standing Responding Evidence Market Definition Section 90.1 +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Martin

Applicant

Alphabet Inc.

Respondent

Google LLC

Respondent

Google Canada Corporation

Respondent

Apple Inc.

Respondent

Apple Canada Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Make Application Under S.103.1 of the Competition Act / Decision on Motions for Leave to Adduce Responding Evidence Under Rule 119(3) (reasons and Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents should be granted leave under Rule 119(3) to adduce responding evidence
  2. 2 Proper approach to interpreting amended subsection 103.1(7) ‘in the public interest’ language
  3. 3 Relevance and permissible scope of evidence from the US District Court Proceedings at the leave stage

Ratio Decidendi

Grant in part and refuse in part: respondents granted leave under Rule 119(3) to file narrowly tailored factual responding evidence (Google: applicant relationship, general description of Google search products, distinctions among Google entities, limited factual overview of US District Court Proceedings including duration, number of witnesses and exhibits, and confirmation of intent to appeal/seek stay; Apple: transcript may be filed but redacted to contain only material relevant to whether Apple is a potential competitor under s.90.1(11) and whether the impugned agreement had a significant purpose under s.90.1(1.01)). Leave refused for broad, complex or merits‑related evidence...

Court Disposition

Motions granted in part and refused in part

Orders

  • Google and Apple granted leave under Rule 119(3) to file the limited factual responding evidence described in the Reasons
  • Google and Apple denied leave to adduce other evidence as described in the Reasons