March 29, 2016
The decision by Canada’s Competition Tribunal in Audatex Canada ULC v. CarProof Corp. to disallow the plaintiff private action under the Competition Act’s “refusal to deal” provision has been profiled by the Financial Post. Partner and co-head of our Competition and Foreign Investment Review Practice, Omar Wakil, was sought for comment on this ruling. Below is an excerpt of the article.
The tribunal concluded in a case called Audatex Canada ULC v. CarProof Corp. that Audatex had not demonstrated that it had been “directly and substantially affected” by the suppliers’ actions. Audatex alleged hat several suppliers, among them Auto Trader and Kijiji, refused to provide it with key data, citing an exclusive supply agreement with CarProof. Audatex claimed the refusal affected almost one-quarter of its business.
“Basically everybody loses,” says Omar Wakil, a competition lawyer with Torys LLP in Toronto. “Given the long line of applicants that have had leave denied or lost on the merits, you’ve got to wonder whether there’s any point in having the refusal to deal provisions in the legislation at all.”
To read the full article, click here.