Sono Pro Inc. - Reasons and Order regarding application for leave under section 75 (professional English translation, not revised)

Sono Pro Inc. - Reasons and Order regarding application for leave under section 75 (professional English translation, not revised)

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide sufficient credible evidence (sales figures, explanation of related products/services, or calculation of alleged losses) to give the Tribunal reason to believe it was directly and substantially affected by the respondent’s refusal to deal, and therefore the s.103.1(7) test was not met.

Citation
2007 Comp Trib 18
Parties
Applicant: Sono Pro Inc.; Respondent: Sonotechnique P.J.L. Inc.
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Leave to Make Application Under Section 103.1 (for an Application Under Section 75 Refusal to Deal) / Decision on Application for Leave (reasons and Order)
Outcome
Application for leave to make an application under section 75 dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Legal Topics
Refusal to Deal, Leave to Apply Under S.103.1, Exclusive Distribution, Standing/standing to Sue
Source Language
English
Competition Law Commercial Law Antitrust Refusal to Deal Leave to Apply Under S.103.1 Exclusive Distribution Standing/standing to Sue

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sono Pro Inc.

Applicant

Sonotechnique P.J.L. Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Make Application Under Section 103.1 (for an Application Under Section 75 Refusal to Deal) / Decision on Application for Leave (reasons and Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is directly and substantially affected in its business by the respondent’s refusal to deal under s.75
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient credible evidence to meet the s.103.1(7) leave test
  3. 3 Whether, on the applicant’s allegations, an order could be made under s.75

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide sufficient credible evidence (sales figures, explanation of related products/services, or calculation of alleged losses) to give the Tribunal reason to believe it was directly and substantially affected by the respondent’s refusal to deal, and therefore the s.103.1(7) test was not met.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to make an application under section 75 dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • The application for leave to make an application under section 75 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.