Samuelson-Glushko CIPPIC v Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Inc., 2026 Comp Trib 19

Samuelson-Glushko CIPPIC v Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Inc., 2026 Comp Trib 19

The motion was granted in part and refused in part. The Tribunal allowed Apple to file a responding affidavit from counsel limited to paragraphs 1-7,9-16 and 18-21 (including the attached exhibits) because those paragraphs provided discrete, responsive factual status updates (foreign decisions status, certain US decisions, and brief website excerpts) relevant to the s.103.1 screening function. The Tribunal refused paragraphs 8 and 17: paragraph 8 (a mere list of additional US orders without attachments) was unnecessary and not tightly connected to the leave analysis, and paragraph 17 (an affidavit by counsel attaching Mr Schiller’s 70‑page UK CAT witness statement prepared for another...

Citation
2026 Comp Trib 19
Parties
Applicant: Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic; Respondent: Apple Inc.; Respondent: Apple Canada Inc.
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Leave to Commence Application Under Sections 77 and 79 of the Competition Act (s.103.1) / Rule 119(3) Motion for Leave to File Responding Affidavit; Decision on Interlocutory Motion Prior to Leave Hearing
Outcome
Motion granted in part and refused in part
Legal Topics
Section 103.1 Leave to Commence Proceeding, Abuse of Dominance (ss.78 79), Responding Affidavit Under Rule 119(3), Admissibility and Weight of Foreign Decisions, Scope of Evidence at Screening/leave Stage
Source Language
English
Competition Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Section 103.1 Leave to Commence Proceeding Abuse of Dominance (ss.78 79) Responding Affidavit Under Rule 119(3) Admissibility and Weight of Foreign Decisions Scope of Evidence at Screening/leave Stage

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic

Applicant

Apple Inc.

Respondent

Apple Canada Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Commence Application Under Sections 77 and 79 of the Competition Act (s.103.1) / Rule 119(3) Motion for Leave to File Responding Affidavit; Decision on Interlocutory Motion Prior to Leave Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Apple should be granted leave under Rule 119(3) to file a responding affidavit from its counsel
  2. 2 Whether specific paragraphs (5-7,8,9-16,17,18-21) of the proposed affidavit are admissible at the leave stage
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of foreign court/tribunal decisions on a public interest s.103.1 application

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was granted in part and refused in part. The Tribunal allowed Apple to file a responding affidavit from counsel limited to paragraphs 1-7,9-16 and 18-21 (including the attached exhibits) because those paragraphs provided discrete, responsive factual status updates (foreign decisions status, certain US decisions, and brief website excerpts) relevant to the s.103.1 screening function. The Tribunal refused paragraphs 8 and 17: paragraph 8 (a mere list of additional US orders without attachments) was unnecessary and not tightly connected to the leave analysis, and paragraph 17 (an affidavit by counsel attaching Mr Schiller’s 70‑page UK CAT witness statement prepared for another...

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part and refused in part

Orders

  • Apple may file a responding affidavit of Julian Kleinbrodt limited to paragraphs 1-7, 9-16 and 18-21 of the proposed affidavit, including the exhibits referred to in those paragraphs, in accordance with the Tribunal’s Reasons and the Direction dated March 16, 2026
  • Paragraphs 8 and 17 of the proposed responding affidavit, and the cases and exhibits mentioned in those paragraphs, are not permitted to be filed