Audatex Canada, ULC v. CarProof Corporation et al. - Order amending the style of cause

Audatex Canada, ULC v. CarProof Corporation et al. - Order amending the style of cause

The Tribunal ordered correction of the respondent name because Rule 34(1) authorizes application of the Federal Courts Rules to fill procedural gaps and Rule 76 permits correction of a party name where the mistake would not cause reasonable doubt as to identity; counsel confirmed the true owner of the data and all parties consented, so correction was appropriate.

Citation
2015 Comp Trib 25
Parties
Applicant: Audatex Canada, ULC; Respondent: CarProof Corporation; Respondent: Trader Corporation; Respondent: Marktplaats B.V.
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave Under Section 103.1 to Make an Application Under Section 75 of the Competition Act / Order Amending Style of Cause (decided on Written Record)
Outcome
The respondent name eBay Canada Limited was corrected to Marktplaats B.V.; all references in the record to eBay are deemed to read Marktplaats; the style of cause was amended accordingly.
Legal Topics
Leave to Make Application, Correction of Party Name, Style of Cause, Competition Tribunal Rules, Federal Courts Rules
Source Language
English
Competition Law Procedural Law Administrative Law Leave to Make Application Correction of Party Name Style of Cause Competition Tribunal Rules Federal Courts Rules

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Audatex Canada, ULC

Applicant

CarProof Corporation

Respondent

Trader Corporation

Respondent

Marktplaats B.V.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave Under Section 103.1 to Make an Application Under Section 75 of the Competition Act / Order Amending Style of Cause (decided on Written Record)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should correct the named respondent from eBay Canada Limited to Marktplaats B.V. under applicable procedural rules
  2. 2 Whether the correction would create reasonable doubt as to the party's identity
  3. 3 Whether party consent supports the correction

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal ordered correction of the respondent name because Rule 34(1) authorizes application of the Federal Courts Rules to fill procedural gaps and Rule 76 permits correction of a party name where the mistake would not cause reasonable doubt as to identity; counsel confirmed the true owner of the data and all parties consented, so correction was appropriate.

Court Disposition

The respondent name eBay Canada Limited was corrected to Marktplaats B.V.; all references in the record to eBay are deemed to read Marktplaats; the style of cause was amended accordingly.

Orders

  • The name of the Respondent 'eBay Canada Limited' is corrected to 'Marktplaats B.V.'
  • References in the Applicant’s Application for Leave and Reply Record to 'eBay Canada Limited' and 'eBay' are deemed to read 'Marktplaats B.V.' and 'Marktplaats' respectively