Brandon Gray Internet Services - Order regarding costs

Brandon Gray Internet Services - Order regarding costs

The Tribunal dismissed the leave application for failure to provide evidence of a likely adverse effect on competition under s.75(1)(e) and, exercising its discretion on costs, rejected both the applicant's nominal proposals and the respondent's full claim as excessive in light of the usual Column III tariff benchmark and the lack of complexity, and awarded $6,000.00 in costs plus $394.83 in disbursements (inclusive of taxes).

Citation
2011 Comp Trib 24
Parties
Applicant: Brandon Gray Internet Services Inc.; Respondent: Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA)
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Leave to Make Application Under Section 103.1 of the Competition Act / Order Regarding Costs Following Dismissal of Leave Application
Outcome
Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $6,000.00 for costs plus $394.83 for disbursements (inclusive of taxes).
Legal Topics
Refusal to Deal, Private Action Leave, Costs
Source Language
English
Competition Law Administrative Law Refusal to Deal Private Action Leave Costs

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

Parties

Brandon Gray Internet Services Inc.

Applicant

Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Make Application Under Section 103.1 of the Competition Act / Order Regarding Costs Following Dismissal of Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to costs for opposing the leave application
  2. 2 Appropriate quantum of costs given Tribunal practice and the complexity of the matter
  3. 3 Whether the applicant met the threshold in s.75(1)(e) to obtain leave

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal dismissed the leave application for failure to provide evidence of a likely adverse effect on competition under s.75(1)(e) and, exercising its discretion on costs, rejected both the applicant's nominal proposals and the respondent's full claim as excessive in light of the usual Column III tariff benchmark and the lack of complexity, and awarded $6,000.00 in costs plus $394.83 in disbursements (inclusive of taxes).

Court Disposition

Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $6,000.00 for costs plus $394.83 for disbursements (inclusive of taxes).

Orders

  • The Applicant is to pay the Respondent $6,000.00 for costs plus $394.83 for disbursements (both inclusive of taxes).