Ontario Civil

Civil Procedure

Refusing to order respondents to file application record did not prejudice commissioner

Commissioner brought application for declaration respondents engaged in conduct contrary to s. 74.01(1)(a) and (b) of Competition Act (Can.). Commissioner sought order that respondents stop making representations about dropped call performance for ten years and order that respondents stop for ten years making false or misleading representations to public promoting use of their wireless telecommunications services. Respondents sought production of documents from commissioner and new entrants. Respondents were permitted to conduct examination of Wind and Public under Rule 39.03 of Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.) before delivering responding application record. Respondents were not permitted to initiate Rule 39.03 examination of Videotron because Commissioner intended to conduct such examination. Respondents were not attempting to conduct discovery. Respondents were able to specify scope of proposed examinations Examination of Public Mobile and Wind Mobile. Compelling respondents to file application record at this time would not be efficient use of judicial resources or make proceeding fairer or more targeted. Refusing to order respondents to file application record did not prejudice commissioner. Respondent’s motion to strike out Videotron portion of affidavit was dismissed as premature. It was not clear documents and information requested by commissioner would be generated by normal application of Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.). Ordering compliance with respondents’ document request did not appear to be necessary.

Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. Rogers Communications Inc.

(Dec. 7, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Marrocco J., File No. CV-10-8993-00 CL) 211 A.C.W.S. (3d) 317 (12 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?