Audatex Canada, ULC v. CarProof Corporation et al. - Public version of Reasons for Order and Order dismissing an application for leave

Audatex Canada, ULC v. CarProof Corporation et al. - Public version of Reasons for Order and Order dismissing an application for leave

The application for leave is dismissed because Audatex failed to adduce sufficient credible, non‑speculative evidence to give rise to a bona fide belief that it is directly and substantially affected by the respondents' refusal to supply automobile listings data; critical financial and supply‑magnitude evidence was missing or speculative, the claimed cascading harm to partial loss services lacked corroboration, and portions of reply affidavit evidence were struck as not permissible under the Rules; consequence: leave denied and costs awarded to respondents.

Citation
2015 Comp Trib 28
Parties
Applicant: Audatex Canada, ULC; Respondent: CarProof Corporation; Respondent: Trader Corporation; Respondent: Marktplaats B.V.
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Leave to Make Application Under Section 103.1 of the Competition Act / Decision on Leave Application; Reasons for Order and Order Dismissing Application for Leave (december 16, 2015)
Outcome
Application for leave under section 103.1 to bring a s.75 refusal to deal application dismissed; costs awarded to respondents
Legal Topics
Refusal to Deal, Leave to Apply, Section 75, Data Licensing, Exclusive Supply Agreements, Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence
Source Language
English
Competition Law Antitrust Refusal to Deal Leave to Apply Section 75 Data Licensing Exclusive Supply Agreements Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence

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

Parties

Audatex Canada, ULC

Applicant

CarProof Corporation

Respondent

Trader Corporation

Respondent

Marktplaats B.V.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Make Application Under Section 103.1 of the Competition Act / Decision on Leave Application; Reasons for Order and Order Dismissing Application for Leave (december 16, 2015)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant is directly and substantially affected by the respondents' alleged refusal to deal
  2. 2 Whether each element of s.75(1) could be met and an order issued
  3. 3 Whether reply affidavit evidence filed with the reply is admissible under the Competition Tribunal Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave is dismissed because Audatex failed to adduce sufficient credible, non‑speculative evidence to give rise to a bona fide belief that it is directly and substantially affected by the respondents' refusal to supply automobile listings data; critical financial and supply‑magnitude evidence was missing or speculative, the claimed cascading harm to partial loss services lacked corroboration, and portions of reply affidavit evidence were struck as not permissible under the Rules; consequence: leave denied and costs awarded to respondents.

Court Disposition

Application for leave under section 103.1 to bring a s.75 refusal to deal application dismissed; costs awarded to respondents

Orders

  • Audatex’s application for leave to apply under section 75 of the Competition Act is denied.
  • Respondents are awarded costs.