COMPETITION |
Practice |
Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. Superior Propane Inc.
A-533-00, A-539-00
Linden J.A.
19/9/00
9 pp.
Motions for stay of two Competition Tribunal decisions pending determination of appeals in both cases, as well as for order expediting both appeals and seeking directions--One decision, dated August 30, 2000, dismissed Commissioner's challenge to merger of respondents; other found interim hold separate order (HSO) made December 11, 1998 automatically terminated with above decision (and denying stay)--Commissioner wishing to keep stay order in effect pending determination of appeal but respondents, frustrated by delay and by loss of $2,500,000 per month in efficiencies, wishing to proceed with merger pending appeals--Motion for stay dismissed--Application of three-part test in RJR-MacDonald v. Canada, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311: serious question, irreparable harm, balance of convenience--Serious issue: determining meaning of Competition Act, s. 96 in light of purposes of Act as set out in Act, s. 1.1--Although it may be difficult and costly to do so (respondents aware of fact and willing, if necessary, to bear cost), possible to break up merged company--Harm not irreparable--As three requirements must be proved, no need to consider balance of convenience--Stay denied but hearing of appeals expedited--Competition Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-34, ss. 1.1 (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 19, s. 19), 96 (as enacted idem, s. 45).