Canada Case Law

2026 Comp Trib 20 - Order and Reasons (Rule 119(3) Motion) CT-2025-008

Court

Competition Tribunal

The Tribunal granted leave to file both the Tarlton responding affidavit and the Robles reply affidavit because each adduced specific, circumscribed factual evidence relevant to the s.103.1 leave-stage screening, the Robles material was directly responsive to ambiguous and potentially misleading statements in Tarlton, and no prejudice was shown.

Source excerpt

• S.103.1 leave
• Public interest standing
• Abuse of dominance
• Admissibility of affidavit evidence
• Rule 119(3)
• Rule 2

Read case analysis

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

Court

Competition Tribunal

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 affi…

Source excerpt

• 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

Read case analysis

Whitecap Resources Inc. v Pulse Seismic Inc. - 2026 Comp Trib 18 - Confidentiality Order - CT-2026-003

Court

Competition Tribunal

The Tribunal concluded that a confidentiality order is necessary and should be issued in substantially the parties' proposed form, with defined Levels A, B and C and prescribed access limitations because affidavit evidence and submissions will include competitively sensitive information (prices, contracts, financials, plans) that could cause specific and direct harm if public; the order establishes who may access each level, permits up to six in‑house counsel and one additional designate per party subject to undertaking and Tribunal objection, requires public redacted versions, and preserves…

Source excerpt

• Leave under s.103.1
• Confidentiality orders
• Protective orders
• Designation of confidential information
• Access restrictions for counsel and experts

Read case analysis

Atkinson v. The Commissioner of Competition

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

Filing an application before the Competition Tribunal does not terminate the Commissioner’s s.10 inquiry nor exhaust the power to seek s.11 ex parte orders; both a motion under rule 399 and an appeal under section 27 are available remedies but carry different burdens and standards, and the appellants’ rule 399 motion failed for lack of a prima facie case, so the Federal Court’s s.11 order was upheld.

Source excerpt

• Section 11 ex parte orders
• Section 10 inquiries
• Rule 399 motions to set aside
• Third-party discovery vs investigatory powers
• Admissibility of compelled testimony
• Mootness and discretionary hearing

Read case analysis

Bahraini v. Cineplex Inc.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held it was not plain and obvious that s.52(7) bars a private s.36 drip‑pricing claim given arguable statutory interpretations and policy considerations, so the drip‑pricing claim survives the strike motion; conversely the s.54 double‑ticketing claim was struck because the pleaded sequential price expressions do not meet s.54's contemporaneous temporal requirement and would render s.52(1.3) redundant.

Source excerpt

• Drip pricing
• Double ticketing
• Duplication of proceedings (s.52(7))
• Private right of action (s.36)
• Motion to strike

Read case analysis

Fazio v. Altus Business Consultants Limited

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed Marie Pia Fazio’s appeal from an Associate Judge’s Rule 74 order removing her claim from the court file for lack of jurisdiction and no viable cause of action.

• Rule 74 dismissal/removal of claim
• Ito jurisdiction test
• Ownership presumption s.13(3) copyright act
• Federal vs provincial jurisdiction
• Pleading sufficiency for ip claims
• Proportionality in case management

Read case analysis

Rogers Communications Inc. v. Commissioner of Competition

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the proposed amendment to plead facts about the Bureau's prior internal investigation and communications was irrelevant to the statutory determinations the Tribunal must make about deceptive marketing and the AMP under s.74.1(5); irrelevance defeats a reasonable prospect of success, and deference is owed to the case management judge's discretionary management; the newly disclosed documents could not have changed that conclusion and thus fresh evidence was not admitted.

Source excerpt

• Deceptive marketing
• Administrative monetary penalties
• Leave to amend pleadings
• Relevance of internal investigations
• Fresh evidence

Read case analysis

Commissioner of Competition v. Amazon.com Et. Al.

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the Federal Court did not err: section 11 discretion must be exercised consistent with Charter s.8, the judge permissibly required adequate information about the scope of the Data Request before ordering production, the pre‑hearing letters were properly before the court as part of the disclosure record and were not accepted as incontrovertible fact, and Rule 399(1) does not relieve the issuing judge of the duty to be satisfied at the ex parte stage; here the Commissioner failed to justify the scope of the Data Request so the production order was properly refuse…

Source excerpt

• Production order
• Section 11 competition act
• Search and seizure
• Charter s.8
• Ex parte applications
• Full and frank disclosure

Read case analysis

Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Rogers Communications Inc. - 2026 Comp Trib 16 - Order - CT-2024-012

Court

Competition Tribunal

The Tribunal concluded that the Confidentiality Order from the prior proceeding continues to apply to the TELUS records compelled under the Federal Court s.11 order and that the two specific documents subpoenaed from TELUS should be treated identically; accordingly the TELUS records listed in the joint exhaustive list and the two subpoenaed documents are designated Confidential - Level A and remain subject to the prior confidentiality protections.

Source excerpt

• Confidentiality
• Third‑party records
• Subpoena
• Conduct review (s.74.1)
• Production under s.11

Read case analysis

Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Google Canada Corp. - 2026 Comp Trib 17 - Order and Reasons - CT-2024-010

Court

Competition Tribunal

The Tribunal ordered that Google must answer the Commissioner’s requested undertaking only as to the three named witnesses (Dr Jayaram, Dr Korula and Mr Mohan) by confirming whether the identified trial transcript excerpts remain true and accurate today and, if changed, how; Google’s broader refusal based on burden, hearsay and context was rejected as to those three witnesses; all other disclosure requests by Google were refused, and the Commissioner’s claimed litigation privilege over Schedule B documents, including witness statements and their exhibits prepared for the dominant purpose of l…

Source excerpt

• Abuse of dominant position
• Section 79 competition act
• Examinations for discovery
• Litigation privilege
• Limitation period (s.79(6))
• Use of foreign testimony

Read case analysis