Canada Case Law

Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Google Canada Corp. - 2026 Comp Trib 10 - Order and Reasons - CT-2024-010

Court

Competition Tribunal

The Tribunal dismissed Google's motion: s.79 proceedings are administrative, not criminal in nature, and an AMP under subsection 79(3.1) must be interpreted and applied in the statutory context (including ss.79(3.2) and 79(3.3)) as a regulatory, deterrent remedy not a true penal consequence. Applying the Guindon factors, the potential magnitude of an AMP (including theoretical large figures) does not, on the statutory record and evidence before the Tribunal, convert the regime into a penal one; the Tribunal therefore has no warrant to treat s.79(3.1)(b) as authorizing punitive fines that woul…

Source excerpt

• Abuse of dominant position
• Administrative monetary penalties
• Section 11 charter (charged with an offence)
• True penal consequence test
• Statutory interpretation
• Jurisdiction (vires)

Read case analysis

Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court refused certification of a proposed generic-drugs class action, finding no reasonable cause of action, no basis in fact for common issues, and an inadequate litigation plan.

• Price fixing
• Market allocation
• Foreign directives
• Certification criteria
• Expert evidence admissibility
• Price-fixing

Read case analysis

Martin - Order and Reasons (Application for leave under section 103.1)

Court

Competition Tribunal

The Tribunal adopts an adapted three-part public interest standing test for the public interest branch of subsection 103.1(7): (1) whether the proposed application raises a substantial and genuine competition law dispute under the specified provision; (2) whether the applicant has a genuine interest in the matter; and (3) whether the proposed proceeding is a reasonable and effective means to resolve the issues. Applying that test to the materials filed, the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence or capacity under the second and especially the third step to be "satisfied" that gra…

Source excerpt

• Abuse of dominance
• Anti-competitive agreements
• Public interest standing
• Leave to commence proceedings
• Monetary remedies under the competition act

Read case analysis

Martin - Reasons for Order and Order under Rule 119(3)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Grant in part and refuse in part: respondents granted leave under Rule 119(3) to file narrowly tailored factual responding evidence (Google: applicant relationship, general description of Google search products, distinctions among Google entities, limited factual overview of US District Court Proceedings including duration, number of witnesses and exhibits, and confirmation of intent to appeal/seek stay; Apple: transcript may be filed but redacted to contain only material relevant to whether Apple is a potential competitor under s.90.1(11) and whether the impugned agreement had a significant…

Source excerpt

• Leave to commence proceeding
• Public interest standing
• Responding evidence
• Market definition
• Section 90.1
• Section 79

Read case analysis

Google - Order granting leave to amend the notice of application

Court

Competition Tribunal

The Tribunal granted leave to amend the Notice of Application because the Commissioner filed an informal motion properly before the Tribunal, Google did not oppose the request, and the Tribunal determined the motion could proceed informally with reasonable consequential timelines for any responsive amendments.

Source excerpt

• Abuse of dominant position
• Section 79 of the competition act
• Divestiture remedy
• Pleadings amendment
• Ad tech markets

Read case analysis

JAMP Pharma - Reasons for Order and Order Dismissing an Application for Leave under section 103.1 of the Competition Act

Court

Competition Tribunal

The Tribunal held that for leave to commence a s.79 proceeding s.103.1(7) need not be read as requiring that the applicant be directly and substantially affected in its entire business; the impact may be assessed in light of the nature of a s.79 practice and the relevant market. However, on the facts JAMP failed to adduce sufficient credible, cogent evidence to give rise to a bona fide belief that Janssen engaged in a practice of anti‑competitive acts under s.79(1)(a) or that Janssen’s conduct had the effect of substantially preventing or lessening competition under s.79(1)(b), and failed to…

Source excerpt

• Abuse of dominant position
• Leave to commence proceeding
• Section 79
• Anti-competitive acts (section 78)
• Relabelled biologics
• Fighting brand

Read case analysis

Mancinelli v. Bank of America Corporation

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court approved settlements in a proposed SSA bond class action, along with notice and administration protocols and Class Counsel fees and disbursements.

• Price‑fixing
• Settlement approval
• Certification
• Releases
• Claims administration
• Class counsel fees

Read case analysis

Charlton v. Musashi Bockenau GmbH & Co. KG

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Supreme Court of British Columbia approved a class action settlement with one defendant in an antitrust case, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the class’s best interests.

• Settlement approval
• Certification for settlement
• Cooperation provisions
• Damages assessment
• Notice to class members
• Cartel enforcement

Read case analysis

JAMP Pharma - Reasons for Order and Order granting an application for leave to file affidavit evidence under Rule 119(3)

Court

Competition Tribunal

The Tribunal granted Janssen leave under Rule 119(3) to file focused factual affidavit evidence responsive to defined topics (whether Finlius is a fighting brand, limited factual pricing evidence tailored to negate predatory pricing allegations and show comparable pricing, marketing and communications materials and training as implemented, patient support program scope, terms of any agreements with prescribers on advisory boards, product indication and formulary/delisting facts, and an agreement bearing on JAMP's ability to bring claims), subject to strict limits against wide-ranging or merit…

Source excerpt

• Section 103.1 leave to commence
• Section 79 abuse of dominance
• Rule 119(3) affidavit evidence
• Fighting brand
• Predatory pricing
• Biosimilars

Read case analysis

Lilleyman v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge did not err: the amended pleadings failed to disclose material facts sufficient to establish a reasonable cause of action under s.5(1)(a) of the CPA and the evidentiary record lacked even a minimal 'some basis in fact' that the alleged U.S. price‑fixing conspiracy affected the separate Canadian tuna market; certification was properly denied and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Certification
• Cause of action
• Some basis in fact
• Preferable procedure
• Price-fixing conspiracy
• Pleadings

Read case analysis