Superior Propane Inc. - Order and Reasons for Order

Superior Propane Inc. - Order and Reasons for Order

The respondents' motion to rescind or vary the Consent Interim Order is dismissed because the Commissioner's s.92 application and supporting evidence raise a serious issue as to the likelihood of a substantial lessening of competition, preventing the respondents' motion from succeeding.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2000 Comp Trib 7
Parties
Applicant: The Commissioner of Competition; Respondent: Superior Propane Inc.; Respondent: ICG Propane Inc.
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Merger Review — Interim Proceedings (section 92 Application; Interim Order Under S.100) / Interim Motions: Respondents' Rescission/variation Motion Under S.106; Applicant's S.92 Application Pending; Oral Hearing on Interlocutory Motion
Outcome
Respondents' motion dismissed; Commissioner's motion to stay adjourned sine die; part of respondents' motion seeking automatic termination of Consent Interim Order 7 days after Tribunal decision dismissed as premature; respondents permitted to seek termination after decision with 72 hours notice.
Legal Topics
Section 92 Application, Consent Interim Order, Rescission/variation Under S.106, Substantial Lessening of Competition, Stay/adjournment
Source Language
english
Competition Law Mergers Interim Relief Section 92 Application Consent Interim Order Rescission/variation Under S.106 Substantial Lessening of Competition Stay/adjournment

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Commissioner of Competition

Applicant

Superior Propane Inc.

Respondent

ICG Propane Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Merger Review — Interim Proceedings (section 92 Application; Interim Order Under S.100) / Interim Motions: Respondents' Rescission/variation Motion Under S.106; Applicant's S.92 Application Pending; Oral Hearing on Interlocutory Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' motion to rescind or vary the Consent Interim Order should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner's s.92 application and evidence raise a serious issue regarding the likelihood of a substantial lessening of competition
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner's motion to stay the respondents' motion should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' motion to rescind or vary the Consent Interim Order is dismissed because the Commissioner's s.92 application and supporting evidence raise a serious issue as to the likelihood of a substantial lessening of competition, preventing the respondents' motion from succeeding.

Court Disposition

Respondents' motion dismissed; Commissioner's motion to stay adjourned sine die; part of respondents' motion seeking automatic termination of Consent Interim Order 7 days after Tribunal decision dismissed as premature; respondents permitted to seek termination after decision with 72 hours notice.

Orders

  • Respondents' motion to rescind or vary the Consent Interim Order is dismissed.
  • The Commissioner's motion to stay the respondents' motion is adjourned sine die.