Culhane v. ATP Aero Training Products Inc.

Culhane v. ATP Aero Training Products Inc.

Plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that defendants' free online exams, although unreasonably low in price, had the effect or tendency to substantially lessen competition or were designed to do so, and failed to prove causation of his losses; accordingly there was no breach of s.50(1)(c) and the tort of unlawful interference was not made out, so the action was dismissed.

Citation
2004 FC 535
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael J. Culhane; Defendant (corporate): ATP Aero Training Products Inc.; Defendant (individual): Reilly James Burke
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Competition Act (predatory Pricing) and Tortious Interference / Trial (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Action dismissed with costs to the defendants
Legal Topics
Predatory Pricing, Unlawful Interference With Economic Interests, Injunction, Damages
Source Language
English
Competition Law Tort Law Predatory Pricing Unlawful Interference With Economic Interests Injunction Damages

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

Parties

Michael J. Culhane

Plaintiff

ATP Aero Training Products Inc.

Defendant (corporate)

Reilly James Burke

Defendant (individual)

Procedural Posture

Civil Competition Act (predatory Pricing) and Tortious Interference / Trial (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants engaged in predatory pricing contrary to s.50(1)(c) of the Competition Act and caused loss under s.36(1)
  2. 2 Whether defendants unlawfully interfered with the plaintiff's economic interests

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that defendants' free online exams, although unreasonably low in price, had the effect or tendency to substantially lessen competition or were designed to do so, and failed to prove causation of his losses; accordingly there was no breach of s.50(1)(c) and the tort of unlawful interference was not made out, so the action was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed with costs to the defendants

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • Costs awarded to defendants