File No.: CT-007-006 THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER of an inquiry under 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, and PREMIER CAREER MANAGEMENT GROUP cc·-R-P-. and MINTO ROY, WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS 1) On May 8, 2007, as it appears from the Tribunal's file, the Applicant filed a Notice of Application against the Respondents;
2) Pursuant to rule 4.1 (1) of the Competition Tribunal Rules and at the latest on May 22, 2007, the Applicant had to serve the Applicant's Disclosure Statement with the Respondents;
CIMPllmtN lltllUNAL 1111UNAL DE LA CINCUllEllCE P Applican .~ R 0 L 0 E u D I llGISTIAI .... HG1Sr1A1u T 0 -n-.-.w. ~,..- oNt. Ia Jl Ji Respondents.
-2-3) On May 22, 2007, the 14th day following the Notice of Application, the Applicant served Premier Career Management Group with the Applicant's Disclosure Statement by leaving a copy with one of its officers, in conformity with rule 54(1 )(a) of the Competition Tribunal Rules;
Affidavit of service of Lawrence McManus, Tab 2, paragraph 1. 4) On the same day, the Applicant unsuccessfully attempted to serve Minto Roy with the Applicant's Disclosure Statement at his place of work and at his residence;
Affidavit of service of Lawrence McManus, Tab 3, paragraphs 1( a) and 1( b ). 5) On May 23, 2007, the 15th day following the Notice of Application, the Applicant served Minto Roy with the Applicant's Disclosure Statement by leaving a copy of the document at his residence, in conformity with rule 54(1 )(b) of the Competition Tribunal Rules;
Affidavit of service of Lawrence McManus, Tab 3, paragraph 1 (c) and 1( d). 6) Pursuant to rule 4.1 of the Competition Tribunal Rules, the Applicant had to serve the Applicant's Disclosure Statement within 14 days following the Notice of Application;
7) The 14th day following the Notice of Application was May 22, 2007; 8) Hence, because it was served on May 23, 2007, the Applicant's Disclosure Statement was serve one day late on Minto Roy;
9) With respect to this one day delay in the service of the Applicant's Disclosure Statement, the Applicant submits as follows:
a) Minto Roy was served with the Applicant's Disclosure Statement just one day late;
b) The next step after the service of the Applicant's Disclosure Statement will be the filing of Minto Roy's response;
c) Rule 5(2) of the Competition Tribunal Rules provides that the 45 days delay for the filing of this response starts after the service of the Applicant's Disclosure Statement;
-3-d) Hence, the one day delay for the service of the Applicant's Disclosure Statement is not affecting Minto Roy's right to have a full period of 45 days to file his response;
e) Rule 68 (1) of the Competition Tribunal Rules provides that the Tribunal may by order extend a time limit prescribed by the rules;
f) The Applicant is seeking the present order because rule 68(3) of the Competition Tribunal Rules prescribes that time limits provided in the rules shall not be modified other than by order of the Tribunal.
1O )For these reasons, the Applicant requests that this Tribunal extends by one day the delay provided at rule 4.1 of the Competition Tribunal Rules and declares that the Applicant's Disclosure Statement has been properly served on Minto Roy;
11 )A draft order is attached at Tab 5 of the Motion Record.
GatiAeau, June 4, 2007 / . i /
~tephane Lilkoff Counsel to the Applicant
I ( I