Case Documents

Reference: Kobo Inc. v. The Commissioner of Competition, 2014 Comp. Trib. 6

File No.: CT-2014-02

Registry Document No.: 61

IN THE MATTER OF the Competition Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C 34 as amended;

AND IN THE MATTER OF an inquiry commenced under section 10 of the Competition Act, relating to certain alleged anti-competitive conduct in the markets for E-books in Canada;

AND IN THE MATTER OF the filing and registration of a consent agreement pursuant to section 105 of the Competition Act;

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application under section 106(2) of the Competition Act, by Kobo Inc. to rescind or vary the Consent Agreement between the Commissioner of Competition and Hachette Book Group Canada Ltd., Hachette Book Group, Inc., Hachette Digital, Inc.; HarperCollins Canada Limited; Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC; and Simon & Schuster Canada, a division of CBS Canada Holdings Co. filed and registered with the Competition Tribunal on February 7, 2014, under section 105 of the Competition Act.

Decided on the basis of the written record

Before Judicial Member: Rennie J. (Chairperson)

Date of Order and Reasons: May 14, 2014

Order and Reasons signed by: Mr. Justice Donald J. Rennie

SCHEDULING ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER REGARDING THE REFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

[1]  On March 18, 2014 the registration of the consent agreement in issue in this matter was stayed pending determination of Kobo’s application under subsection 106(2) of the Competition Act (RSC, 1985, c C-34). Given the outstanding stay order, at the Case Management Conference of April 16, 2014, the Tribunal suggested a hearing date in the fall of 2014 for the application, and requested the parties provide an agreed upon schedule for the hearing of the application.

[2]  The Tribunal has considered the draft consent schedule submitted by the parties on April 30, 2014 and correspondence from counsel for the Commissioner of May 12, 2014, in light of subsection 9(2) of the Competition Tribunal Act, RSC 1985, c 19 (2^nd Supp.) which provides that all proceedings before the Tribunal shall be dealt with as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit. While the proposed schedule for hearing of the application cannot be characterized as aggressive, the parties are all represented by experienced counsel who have agreed to the timetable.

[3]  The Tribunal notes that the nature of 106(2) proceedings will be informed by the outcome of Kobo’s Motion to Strike and the outcome of the Reference, if it proceeds. In consequence of those decisions, the deadlines set out below may be altered. The Tribunal agrees with the joint request of the parties that the Motion to Strike be disposed of in writing.

IN THIS CONTEXT, THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

The Motion to Strike:

The Reference:

COUNSEL:

For the applicant:

For the respondents: