Case information

Competition — Conspiracy — Wrongful marketing practices — Unfair competition — Evidence required — Damage — Abuse of procedure — Degree of evidence required under statutory liability scheme provided for in s. 36 of Competition Act in order to recover damages after proving violation of Part VI of Competition Act — Whether, where alleged violation is breach of s. 52 of Competition Act, proof of that violation and of damage suffered can lead to inference of cause and effect relationship between violation and damage — Whether gaps in evidence, even major ones, can lead to conclusion of abusive proceeding — Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 34, ss. 36(1), 52(1) — Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C 25.01, art. 54.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicants brought an action against the respondents in which they claimed more that $12 million in damages. They alleged that the respondents had conspired to exclude them from the market for products for foundries, thereby engaging in wrongful marketing practices and unfair competition. The Superior Court dismissed their action, concluding that there was no evidence of a connection between a fault committed by the respondents and damage suffered by the applicants. It held that the action constituted abuse of procedure and ordered the applicants to reimburse the reasonable extrajudicial fees incurred by the respondents. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal, upholding the trial judge’s conclusion that there was no evidence whatsoever of a causal connection between the alleged offences under the Competition Act and the alleged losses. It also concluded that the appeal was abusive and ordered the applicants to reimburse the respondents’ extrajudicial fees.