Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Google Canada Corp. - 2026 Comp Trib 17 - Order and Reasons - CT-2024-010

Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Google Canada Corp. - 2026 Comp Trib 17 - Order and Reasons - CT-2024-010

The Tribunal ordered that Google must answer the Commissioner’s requested undertaking only as to the three named witnesses (Dr Jayaram, Dr Korula and Mr Mohan) by confirming whether the identified trial transcript excerpts remain true and accurate today and, if changed, how; Google’s broader refusal based on burden, hearsay and context was rejected as to those three witnesses; all other disclosure requests by Google were refused, and the Commissioner’s claimed litigation privilege over Schedule B documents, including witness statements and their exhibits prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation, was upheld.

Citation
2026 Comp Trib 17
Parties
Applicant: Commissioner of Competition; Respondents: Google Canada Corporation and Google LLC
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Abuse of Dominant Position / Motions to Compel Answers at Examinations for Discovery
Outcome
Commissioner’s motion granted in part; Google’s motion dismissed; costs awarded to Commissioner
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominant Position, Section 79 Competition Act, Examinations for Discovery, Litigation Privilege, Limitation Period (s.79(6)), Use of Foreign Testimony
Source Language
English
Competition Law Civil Procedure Evidence Discovery Privilege Abuse of Dominant Position Section 79 Competition Act Examinations for Discovery +3 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commissioner of Competition

Applicant

Google Canada Corporation and Google LLC

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Abuse of Dominant Position / Motions to Compel Answers at Examinations for Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Google must answer a requested undertaking requiring employees to confirm the current accuracy of prior US trial/deposition testimony
  2. 2 Whether litigation privilege shields documents listed in the Commissioner’s Schedule B including witness statements and their exhibits
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner must disclose internal recommendation memoranda, working papers and investigatory thought processes from prior inquiries

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal ordered that Google must answer the Commissioner’s requested undertaking only as to the three named witnesses (Dr Jayaram, Dr Korula and Mr Mohan) by confirming whether the identified trial transcript excerpts remain true and accurate today and, if changed, how; Google’s broader refusal based on burden, hearsay and context was rejected as to those three witnesses; all other disclosure requests by Google were refused, and the Commissioner’s claimed litigation privilege over Schedule B documents, including witness statements and their exhibits prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation, was upheld.

Court Disposition

Commissioner’s motion granted in part; Google’s motion dismissed; costs awarded to Commissioner

Orders

  • Google shall confirm whether the testimony of Dr Jayaram, Dr Korula and Mr Mohan in the trial transcript excerpts identified by the Commissioner remains true and accurate as of the date of the Order, and if changed since September 2024 explain how
  • Google’s answers are subject to the qualifications and limitations specified by the Tribunal (identification of specific qualifications for specific excerpts, limitation to facts, exclusion of court rulings and stipulated handwriting matters, and specified transcript line adjustments)