Charette v. Honeywell Ltd.

Charette v. Honeywell Ltd.

No conspiracy existed under s.45 because Honeywell's accreditation requirement was a unilateral business condition rather than an arrangement; allegations of refusal to deal properly fall under s.75 and thus within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Competition Bureau/Tribunal so this Court cannot grant the relief sought; the website representations were not shown to be false or misleading in a material respect, so the s.52 claim fails.

Citation
2003 FC 1051
Parties
Plaintiff: Kirk Charette; Defendant: Honeywell Limited
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Competition Act Civil / Summary Judgment (decision on Cross Motions)
Outcome
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment dismissed; Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment allowed; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Refusal to Deal (s.75), Conspiracy (s.45), False or Misleading Representations (s.52), Jurisdiction, Summary Judgment
Source Language
English
Competition Law Civil Procedure Refusal to Deal (s.75) Conspiracy (s.45) False or Misleading Representations (s.52) Jurisdiction Summary Judgment

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kirk Charette

Plaintiff

Honeywell Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Competition Act Civil / Summary Judgment (decision on Cross Motions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Honeywell's requirement to apply through an authorized dealer program constitutes a conspiracy under s.45 of the Competition Act or a refusal to deal under s.75
  2. 2 Whether Honeywell's website representations constitute a false or misleading representation contrary to s.52 of the Competition Act

Ratio Decidendi

No conspiracy existed under s.45 because Honeywell's accreditation requirement was a unilateral business condition rather than an arrangement; allegations of refusal to deal properly fall under s.75 and thus within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Competition Bureau/Tribunal so this Court cannot grant the relief sought; the website representations were not shown to be false or misleading in a material respect, so the s.52 claim fails.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment dismissed; Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment allowed; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment dismissed
  • Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment allowed