Competition Tribunal Tribunal de la Concurrence Reference: The Commissioner of Competition v. Premier Career Management Group and Minto Roy, 2010 Comp. Trib. 14 File No.: CT-2007-006 Registry Document No.: 0206
IN THE MATTER of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER of an inquiry pursuant to subparagraph 10(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act relating to certain marketing practices of Premier Career Management Group Corp. and Minto Roy;
AND IN THE MATTER of an application by the Commissioner of Competition for an order under section 74.1 of the Competition Act.
BETWEEN: The Commissioner of Competition (applicant)
and Premier Career Management Group Corp. and Minto Roy (respondents)
Decided on the basis of the written record. Before Judicial Member: Simpson J. (Chairperson) Date of Order: September 21, 2010 Order signed by: Justice Sandra J. Simpson
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER- ON CONSENT OF THE PARTIES
[1] FURTHER TO Premier Career Management Group. Corp. and Minto Roy's request for a confidentiality order;
[2] AND FURTHER TO the draft confidentiality orders filed on consent by the parties on January 29, 2010, and March 12, 2010;
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT: [3] For purposes of this order: (a) "Document" means any document whatsoever, including the things defined as "records" in subsection 2(1) of the Competition Act, R.S. 1985, c. C-34 (the "Act"); (b) "Parties" means the Commissioner and the Respondents, and "Party" means the Commissioner or a Respondent; (c) "Proceeding" means the application filed by the Commissioner for an order under section 74.1 of the Act; and (d) "Protected Documents" means any document containing the personal financial information filed by Minto Roy in the Proceeding, or otherwise produced in the Proceeding.
[4] Disclosure of Documents containing any of the following types of information could cause specific and direct harm:
(a) Information relating to Minto Roy's terms of employment, his salary and his overall compensation; (b) Personal financial information of Minto Roy including but not limited to his assets and their respective value, his liabilities and their respective amount, his credit card information and any family support obligations; and (c) Personal information relating to Minto Roy's ex-wife and children.
[5] If information from a Protected Document is incorporated into any other document, that document shall be a Protected Document.
[6] Subject to a further order of the Tribunal, the consent of the Parties or as required by law, Protected Documents may only be disclosed to the following people: (i) external counsel for the Parties and their staff; and (ii) the Commissioner and the Commissioner's staff directly involved in the Proceeding.
in the Proceeding. [7] If a Party is required by law to disclose a Protected Document, or if a Party receives written notice that they are required to disclose a Protected Document, that Party shall give
prompt written notice to the Party that claimed confidentiality over the Protected Document so that the Party that claimed confidentiality may seek a protective order or other appropriate remedy.
[8] External counsel for a Party and his or her staff, and the Commissioner and her staff may make copies of the Protected Documents as they require in connection with the Proceeding.
[9] Nothing in this Order prevents a Party from having full access to Protected Documents that originated from that Party.
[10] This order shall apply to all persons, to the extent that they acquire access to Protected Documents through the Proceeding.
[11] No Protected Documents filed or otherwise produced in the Proceeding shall be disclosed or form part of the public record except in accordance with any other order of the Competition Tribunal.
[12] The Respondents shall file public versions of the Protected Documents from which the personal and financial information of Minto Roy has been redacted in the form attached as Schedules "A", "B" and "C" to this Order.
[13] The conclusion of the Proceeding shall not relieve any person to whom Protected Documents were disclosed from the obligation of maintaining the confidentiality of such information in accordance with the provisions of this Order.
DATED at Ottawa, this 21 st day of September, 2010. SIGNED on behalf of the Tribunal by the Chairperson. (s) Sandra J. Simpson
[14] Schedule A: Affidavit of Minto Roy sworn on November 5, 2009 File No. CT-2007-006 COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
IN THE MATTER of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985:. c. C-34.as amended; AND IN THE MATIER of an inquiry pursuant to subparagraph 10 (l)(b)(ii) of the .Competition Act relating to certain marketing practices of Premier Career Management Group Corp. and Minto Roy;
AND IN 1HE MATTER of an application by under section 74.1 of the Competition Act.
BETWEEN: THE COM.MISSIONER OF COMPETITION Plaintiff
-and-
PREMIER CAREER MANAGEMENT GROUP CORP. and MINTO ROY
AFFIDAVIT OF MINTO ROY (sworn November 5, 2009)
I, Minto Roy, of the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, SWEARTHAT:
1. I have personal knowledge of the facts deposed to herein. 2. I have •••••••••• financial means. I attach a copy of my statement of assets, liabilities, income, and expenses as Exhibit "A" hereto. This statement contains an accurate accounting of my current financial status. I prepared it in connection with divorce proceedings in New
Defendants
Westminster, British Colombia (Court File #E032410), and I hereby adopt it as part of this affidavit.
3. I also attach a copy of the default judgment rendered against me in Royal Bank of Canada v. Minto Roy (Vancouver Registry No. VLC-S-S-088015) as Exhibit "B" hereto.
4. I make this affidavit in good faith and for no improper purpose. SWORN BEFORE ME at the City of Vancouver on November 5, 2009
________________________________ Commissioner for taking affidavits
ALBERT K. MacKINNON A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE PROVINCE Of BRITISH COLUMBIA
EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES, INCOME, AND EXPENSES OF MINTO ROY
Exhibit B No.VLC-S-S-088015 Vancouver Registry In the Supreme Court of British Colombia Between Royal Bank of Canada Plaintiff And Minto Roy Defendant DEFAULT JUDGMENT The 5 th day of February, 2009. The defendant Minto Roy, not having filed an appearance to the writ of summons in this action and the time for doing so having expired.
THIS COURT ORDERS that the defendant, Minto Roy, pay to the plaintiff the sum of •••••••••• plus Interest as claimed in the amount of ••••••••• and ••••••••• costs.
No VLC.S-S-088015
__________________________________________________
In the Supreme Court of British Colombia Between Royal Bank of Canada Plaintiff
and Minto Roy Defendant
__________________________________________________ DEFAULT JUDGMENT __________________________________________________ Jennifer Cockbill LANG MICHENER LLP Barristers & Sollicitors Suite 1500 1055 West Goergia Street P.O. box 11117 Vancouver BC V6B 4N7 (604) 689-9111
File No.: 45303-3300 JC;
[15] Schedule B: Affidavit of Minto Roy sworn on December 15, 2009
Vancouver Registry
CT-2007-006 COMPETITION TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER of the Competition Act, R.S.C.1985c.C-34, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER of an inquiry under subparagraph 10(l)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act relating to certain marketing practices of Premier Career Management Group Corp. and Minto Roy;
AND IN THE MATIER of an application by the Commissioner of Competition for an order under section 74.1 of the Competition Act;
Between: THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION Applicant
And
PREMIER CAREER MANAGEMENT GROUP CORP. And
MINTO ROY Respondents AFFIDAVIT OF MINTO ROY I, Minto Roy, of the City of Vancouver, SOLBMNLY SWEAR THAT: 1. 1have personal knowledge of the matters to which I hereinafter depose. 2. I am currently employed on a verbal, month-to-month, contract basis by Snap Technologies Ltd. ("Snaptech''). Snaptech is located at 110-2465 Beta Avenue, Burnaby, British Columbia.
3. I have been employed with Snaptech since March 2009. My compensation is •••••••• per month. Attached and marked as Exhibits "A" and "B are copies of letters from Octavio Marquez (President and Co-Founder of Snaptech) confirming my employment. Attached as Exhibits "C","D" and "E" are three copies of pay cheques from Snaptech. The amounts on the cheques are •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.
4. I presently •••••••••••••••• income. 5. I was previously married to Nicole Roy. I am in the process of finalizing my divorce from Nicole Roy (British Columbia Court File No. B32410). We have recently reached an agreement on child custody, support payments and property. Attached as Exhibit ̀ F̀̀ ̀is a copy of my consent to an order that Nicole Roy is seeking in the divorce proceedings (the ''Consent Order").Attached as Exhibit "G'' is a copy of minutes from the most recent Judicial Case Conference in the divorce proceeding. It references the same terms as the Consent Order.
6. Nicole Roy and I have been separated and lived in separate residences since February of 2004. Originally, I co-signed the mortgage on •••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• (the "Property") but that property belongs to and has always belonged to Nicole Roy. It is however, the primary home of my children. 7. I have never resided at the Property and the Property was never our matrimonial home. I have no interest in the Property. My name is not on title. Earlier in the divorce proceeding, my former lawyer obtained a Certificate of Pending Litigation ("CPL ") on the Property. I believe that once my divorce is finalized and the Consent Order is obtained, then the CPL will be removed.
8. In paragraph 10 of the Consent Order, the shares that are referenced are shares in three companies:
a) PCMG Canada Inc. I hold 100% of the shares in PCMG Canada Inc. This company is no longer in business and therefore the shares have no value.
b) Rev Gen Inc. I hold 50 shares.in Rev Gen Inc. representing 50% of the Company Rev Gen Inc. is no longer in business and is deregistered. Therefore, its shares have no value.
c) 0831749 British Columbia Ltd. I registered 0831749 British Columbia Ltd. under my name as a consulting company to receive payments from Rev Gen Inc. 0831749 British Columbia Ltd. never received any money and is not in business. Therefore its shares have no value. ````
9. I make this Affidavit in good faith and for no improper purpose. Sworn before me, in the City of Burnaby, ) in the Province of British Columbia, ) this 15 th day of December, 2009. ) ..
To Whom it may concern, October 22 nd / 09 I am writing to confirm that to Roy is a contract employee at Snaptechnologies Ltd.
He has been consulting on a month-to-month contract basis assisting ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••. He has provided consulting for Snaptechnologies since March, 2009. Mr. Roy’s compensation is ••••••••••• per month.
Should you have any questions with regards to this matter please feel free to contact me personally. Octavio Marquez President Snaptechnologies Ltd.
This Exhibit ‘’A’’ referred to in the affidavit of Minto Roy sworn before me at Burnaby this 15th day of December, 2009.
To Who It May Concern, December 14, 2009 Minto Roy has worked on a month by month basis at Snaptech Ltd. since March of 2009.
We have not formalized a written employment contract, however, have retained his Professional services on an on-going month by month basis. Both Mr. Roy and Snaptech Ltd. maintain the option •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Mr. Roy's total monthly compensation •••••• per month. I have provided copies of some monthly cheques to substantiate the payments made to him.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Mr. Roy prime responsibility is •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• various business in Greater Vancouver.
We are grateful for Mr. Roy’s contribution to the organization to date. Furthermore, he has worked diligently and supported other staff with their efforts. •••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••.
We appreciate that Mr. Roy has been extremely co-operative and transparent with regards to the matters related to the Competition Bureau. His performance in supporting both sales and marketing at Snaptech has been commendable •••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.
Should you have any questions related to this matter, I would be pleased to provide further insight.
12/14/2009 Cheque Image Vancity – View Cheque Image 1201 2009-10-20
12/14/2009 Cheque Image Vancilty - VIew ChequeImage -
12/14/2009 Cheque Image Vancity - View Cheque Image 1213 2009-10-30
NO.B032410 NEW WESTMlNSTER.REGISTRY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
NICOLE LISA ROY PLAINTlFF AND MINTO DORIANROY
DEFENDANT
ORDER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ) MASTBRKBIGHLBY ) UPON THE Judicial Case Conference of this matter coming on for hearing before me at New Westminster, British Columbia, this 23 UPON H EARING Margaret Smyth, Counsel for the Plaintiff, and Minto Dorian Roy, appearing on his own behalf AND BY CONSENT.
AND UPON Court being advised that the name and birth dates of each child of the marriage is as follows;
AND_ UPON the Defendant (Payor) having been found to have a guideline income of $••••••••••.
MONDAY, THE 23 RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009. rd day of November 2009 AND
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The Plaintiff and Defendant shall share joint custody and joint guardianship of the children of the marriage (the "Children'") wi1h their primary residence being with the Plaintiff
2. The Defendant shall have reasonable and generous access to the Children including alternate Fridays from 4:00 p.m. commencing November 27 th , 2009. 3. The Plaintiff' shall not change the residence of the Children from the lower mainland of British Columbia without agreement of the Defendant or Order of the: Supreme Court of British Columbia.
4. The Defendant shal1 pay the Plaintiff the sum of •••••• per month as base child support for the Children payable on the first of each and every month commencing June 1, 2009.
5. The Defendant shall pay spousal support to the Plaintiff in the sum of •••••••• per month, commencing June l, 2009.
6. The Plaintiff shall retain her home located at • • • • • • • • • • • ("the Home''), without claim from the Defendant.
7. The Plaintiff shall be solely responsible for the mortgage payments associated with the Home and will indemnify the Defendant and save him harmless.
8. Should the Plaintiff be Unable to obtain re-financing of the existing mortgage on the Home to remove the Defendant's obligation by June 1, 2011 or such other date as may be agreed upon, the Home shall be sold and the mortgage discharged whit sole conduct of sale to the Plaintiff and an of the net sale proceeds being the sole property of Plaintiff.
9. The Plaintiff shall retain the funds from her RRSP's without further claim from the Defendant.
10. The Defendant shall retain all of the shares and shareholder loans in the various business entities in which he has an interest, without division with the Plaintiff.
11. Each party shall retain for his or her sole use, ownership and benefit, all finishings and personal property in his or her possession.
12. Each party shall be responsible for all debt in their name. 13. Each party shall bear their own costs.
BY THE COURT APPROVED AND CONSENTEDTO:
BRITISH COLUMBIA SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL CASE CONFERENCE
. Case Management Plan
Style of Proceeding ROY VS ROY Registry NEW WESTMINSTER COPY·CMP Action No. E32410 Persons attending the JCC Plaintiff NICOLE ROY Defendant MINTO ROY Counsel for the Plaintiff Smyth, M. Counsel for the Defendant In Person Other Attendees Name of Judge/Master KEIGHLEY, P Date of Judicial case Conference Monday, November 23, 2009 Date of Last Appearance
PART 1 . SUMMARY OF ISSUES A. IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES: Final Agreement No Agreement on Interim Agreement In Issue Reached Basis Reached
Custody Guardianship Access X Spousal Support Child Support Property Division Other (specify): offer to X Settle terms
This Exhibit “G” referred to in the affidavit
Monday, November 23, 2009
B. INTERIM CONSENT ORDERS MADE AT JCC: ISSUE TERMS OF CONSENT ORDER □ Custody INTERIM CUSTODY CONSENT: n/a □ Guardianship INTERIM GUARDIANSHIP CONSENT: n/a □ Access INTERIM ACCESS CONSENT: n/a □ Spousal Support INTERIM SPOUSAL SUPORT CONSENT: n/a □ Child Support INTERIM CHILD SUPPORT CONSENT: n/a □ Property Division INTERIM PROPERTY DIVISION CONSENT: n/a □ Other INTERIM OTHER CONSENT: n/a
The parties consent to the foregoing orders: □ Solicitor for the Plaintiff □ Solicitor for the Defendant □ Plaintiff □ Defendant Party/counsel who is to prepare the formal order: C. FINAL CONSENT ORDERS MADE AT JCC: ISSUE TERMS OF CONSENT ORDER x Custody Parties share joint custody of children x Guardianship Parties share joint guardianship (Joyce Model) x Access Father shall have reasonable and generous access, as well, alternate Fridays commencing November 27, 2009 at 4:30pm to Saturday 4pm. Plaintiff shall not change children’s Residence without agreement of defendant or order. x Spousal Support Defendant shall pay • • • • • per month on the first of the month commencing December 1, 2009 reviewable on or after July 1, 2013 or upon the Plaintiff remarriage or co- habitation, whichever first occurs. x Child Support Defendant shall pay ••••• per month on the first of the month commencing June 1, 2009. x Property Division Plaintiff to retain her home without claim from defendant Plaintiff responsible for the mortgage payments. In the event that re-financing the mortgage is not possible, sole conduct of sale of the home will be with the Plaintiff. Plaintiff will retain her RRSP, Defendant to retain all his Shares in various businesses without division to plaintiff. Each party shall retain their personal property in their own possession. Each party is responsible for their own debts in own names. Each bears own costs.
□ Other FINAL OTHER CONSENT: n/a The parties consent to the foregoing orders: Monday, November 23, 2009
D. SECTION 57 AND 67 OREDERS: □ Declaration of no reasonable prospect of reconciliation (S. 57) □ Property Restraining order (S. 67) Terms of Order: PART 11, RESOLUTIONS OPTIONS The parties agree to pursue the following resolution options:
By/On Other □ Further Judicial Cases Conference □ Settlement meeting with parties and counsel □ Mediation □ Judicial Settlement Conference □ Mini-trial □ Summary Trial Pursuant to Rule 18A □ Other
PART 11, PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURES A. PARENTING AFTER SEPARATION: □ The parties will attend a Parenting After Separation Seminar By: This dates should be approximately 60 days from the date of the JCC
B. THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURAL ORDERS: □ Pleadings be amended or closed as follows: Plaintiff by Defendant by Other
Monday, November 23, 2009
□ The parties deliver their list of documents as follow: Plaintiff by Defendant by Other
□ The parties deliver their Form 89 Statements as follows: Plaintiff by Defendant by Other
□ The parties oral examination be limited and completed as follows: Plaintiff by Defendant by
□ The parties deliver their experts reports as follows: Plaintiff by Defendant by
□ A Custody and Access Report be prepared in accordance with S. 15 of the Family Relations Act in accordance with the following directions: Person preparing report Scope of report Completion Date Payment Arrangements Other directions
□ Other procedural orders (specify): □ Orders made that all interlocutory applications be heard by:
Monday, November 23, 2009
PART IV TRIAL MANAGEMENT A. TRIAL DATE Date reserved for trial Estimated length of trial
B. PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE DATE: Date and Time C. DATE FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION(S): Date and time for interlocutory Applications
D. OTHER ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
Monday, November 23, 2009
,- \ Monday, November 23, 2009
[16] Schedule C: Affidavit of Minto Roy sworn on February 25, 2010 CT-2007-006 COMPETITION TRIBUNAL IN THE MATI'ER of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985,c. C-34,as amended; AND IN THE MATTER.of an inquiry under subparagraph 10(l)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act relating to certain.marketing practices of Premier Career
Management Group Corp. and Minto Roy;
AND IN THE MA'ITER of an application by the Commissioner of Competition for an order under section 74.1 of the Competition Act; · BETWEEN: THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPEII'IION Applicant And PREMIER CAREER MANAGEMENT GROUP CORP. And MINTO ROY Respondents AFFIDAVIT OF MINTO ROY (sworn February16,2010)
I. Minto Roy, of the City of Vancouver, SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT: 1. 1have personal knowledge of the matters to which I hereinafter depose. 2. While 1have recently been given the title of Vice-President and Partner, my employment with Snap technologies Ltd. ("Snaptech,') remains on a verbal month-to-month contract basis. I do not own shares in Snaptech and there has been no change in my compensation since I began working there. Attached as Exhibit “A” is a copy of a letter from the President of Snaptech Octavio Marquez that confirms my role at Snaptech.
3. I operate the blogs found at the domain names www.mintoroy.com , www.mintoroy.ca and www.mintoroy.net. The blogs and the Twitter page found at www.twitter.com/careertoday exist only to provide general tips on securing employment and are an outlet for my personal thoughts on other business issues.
4. I do not solicit, nor do I conduct business with the blogs or the Twitter page. I do not conduct individual career coaching.
5. I make this Affidavit in good faith and for no improper purpose.
Sworn before me, in the City of Burnaby, ) in the Province of British Columbia, ) this 25 day of February, 2010. )
ALBERT K. MacKINNON A NOTARY P'UBLIC AND FOR THE PROVINCE Of BRiTISH COLUMBIA
SNAPTECH MARKETING GROUP To whom it may concern. Feb.04/2010 I am writing to confirm that Minto Roy's status at Snap technologies remains on a month-to-month verbal contract basis. His compensation has not changed or been adjusted since he commenced work for our company in March, 2009.
Mr. Roy’s job title of “Vice-President and Partner" is a reflection of his contribution and support to our entire team.
As a small business the past few years have been very challenging and like most businesses in Canada we remain cautious. We have benefited from Mr. Roy’s contribution and hard work and feel that the title is an appropriate reflection of his role on our team and required for his continued efforts to represent Snap Technologies Ltd.
Sincerely,
Octavio Marquez President Snap technologies Ltd.
·. .. · ,
COUNSEL: For the applicant: The Commissioner of Competition John Syme For the respondents: Premier Career Management Group Corp. and Minto Roy Sonny Ingram