Date: 20040224
A-62-04
Citation: 2004 FCA 76
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
CANADA PIPE COMPANY LTD./TUYAUTERIES CANADA LTÉE
Appellant
and
COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 24, 2004.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 24, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
Date: 20040224
Docket: A-40-04
Citation: 2004 FCA 76
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
CANADA PIPE COMPANY LTD./TUYAUTERIES CANADA LTÉE
Appellant
and
COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 24, 2004)
[1] These are two appeals from the Competition Tribunal, dealing respectively with production of documents and scheduling. These reasons will apply to both appeals and will be placed in both Court files.
[2] In spite of the able argument of the appellant's counsel, we have not been persuaded that Blanchard J. erred in law or in the exercise of discretion in any way that would warrant interference by this Court in either appeal.
[3] The substance of the appellant's argument appears to be a complaint against the Tribunal's reliance rule for production of documents as opposed to its prior relevance rule. The validity of the reliance rule was dealt with in a prior Tribunal decision which was not appealed to this Court and is not before the Court in this appeal.
[4] Counsel suggested principles or rules for allowing additional discovery under Rule 21(2)(d.1). However as we read that Rule, additional production is ordered where warranted in the circumstances. The provision is not circumscribed by further rules. Rather it permits the Tribunal to exercise its discretion according to the circumstances of the case before it.
[5] The appellant argues that denial of production in this case results in fairness being sacrificed for expediency. However we have not been shown that any actual unfairness results from the decision of Blanchard J. to deny the further production sought by the appellant.
[6] As to the scheduling order under appeal, scheduling is a matter of case management and in the circumstances of this case, this Court will not interfere with that order.
[7] The appeals will be dismissed with one set of costs fixed at $5,000.
"Marshall Rothstein"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:A-40-04
STYLE OF CAUSE:Canada Pipe Company Ltd./Tuyauteries Canada Ltée v. Commissioner of Competition
PLACE OF HEARING:Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING:February 24, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: (Rothstein, Noël & Pelletier JJ.A.)
RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Rothstein J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Kent Thomson
Mr. Davit Akman FOR THE APPELLANT
Mr. John Campion
Mr. Donald Rennie FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
Toronto, OntarioFOR THE APPELLANT
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Toronto, OntarioFOR THE RESPONDENT
Mr. Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, OntarioFOR THE RESPONDENT