Construx v. GM - Reasons and Order in leave application under sections 75 and 77

Construx v. GM - Reasons and Order in leave application under sections 75 and 77

Leave was refused because Construx failed to provide sufficient credible evidence to show it was substantially affected by GM's policies as required by section 103.1(7); therefore the Tribunal did not consider the merits under sections 75 or 77.

Citation
2005 Comp Trib 21
Parties
Applicant: Construx Engineering Corporation; Respondent: General Motors of Canada Ltd.
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Leave to Make Application Under the Competition Act / Decision on Leave Application (written Record)
Outcome
Application dismissed without costs
Legal Topics
Refusal to Deal, Market Restriction, Leave Under Section 103.1
Source Language
English

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Construx Engineering Corporation

Applicant

General Motors of Canada Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Make Application Under the Competition Act / Decision on Leave Application (written Record)

  1. 1 Whether Construx is directly and substantially affected by GM's policies
  2. 2 Whether GM's policies amount to a refusal to deal under s.75
  3. 3 Whether GM's policies amount to a market restriction under s.77

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because Construx failed to provide sufficient credible evidence to show it was substantially affected by GM's policies as required by section 103.1(7); therefore the Tribunal did not consider the merits under sections 75 or 77.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed without costs

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply under sections 75 and 77 dismissed without costs