IN THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL LUIGI CORETTI
vs BUREAU DE LA SECURITE PRIVE 6363 Route Transcanadienne Ouest Bureau 206 Montreal QC H4T 1Z9
and GARDA WORLD SECURITY CORPORATION GARDA WORLD INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION GARDA WORLD SECURITY CORPORATION GARDA CANADA SECURITY CORPORATION THE GARDA SECURITY GROUP SOCIETE EN COMMANDITE TRANSPORT DE VALEURS GARDA GARDA ALARM SERVICES CORPORATION GARDA ALARM SERVICES CORPORATION 1390 rue Barre, Montreal QC H3C 1N 4
Respondent APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER S.77 (3) OF THE COMPETITION ACT
Court File Number: Applicant
I. The Applicant. Luigi Coretti electing domicile at 410 rue Saint-N1colas #1 08 1n Montreal, Quebec H2Y 2P5 hereby applies for leave from this Tribunal to bring an application under s. 77(3)-Market Restriction- of the Competition Act against:
GARDAALARM SERVICES CORPORATION; GARDA WORLD SECURITY CORPORATION : GARDA WORLD INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ; GARDA WORLD SECURITY CORPORATION ; GARDA CANADA SECURITY CORPORATION , THE GARDA SECURITY GROUP; SOCIETE EN COMMANDITE TRANSPORT DE VALEURS GARDA and, GARDAALARM SERVICES CORPORATION
(All collectively referred to as ''GARDA"). All of the GARDA Respondents have the1r head office at 1390 rue Barre in the City of Montreal , Province of Quebec and, as will be further elaborated below, act as one common entity This restriction is also carried out by the Respondent BUREAU DE LA SECURITE PRIVEE. a Quebec Crown Corporation having its head office at 6363 Route Transcanadienne Ouest, Bureau 206 in the City of Montreal, Quebec.a 2. GROUNDS FOR THE APPLICATION· The Applicant is an expert in asset and personal security having worked as a police officer and security agent for over 15 years .
The Applicant has personal information and expenence regarding anti-competitive and market restriction practices of the Respondents Bureau de Ia Securite Publique and Garda .
The Respondent Bureau de Ia Securite Publique is a Corporation that IS an agent of the Quebec Crown who was granted statutory authority to grant or deny permits to exerc1se the bus1ness of secunty and protect1on agents
The Respondent Bureau de Ia Secunte Publique has the monopoly on licensing personnel and enterprises who wish to provide the services .
The Respondents Garda IS the major and predominant supplier of asset and personal secunty. including the transportation of valuables and currency, 1n armoured cars which includes armoured car supply, personnel verification . personal security services and related items such as event protection. As per the definitions of s.2 of the Competition Act, a product includes a service and a supply includes selling , renting or otherwise providing of a service or offer.
The Respondents, although separate corporate entitles, operate in fact as a coordinated single undertaking , with each entity specializing in a sub-sector of the market, for example Garda World Security Corporation operates as a holding, Garda World International Corp as a wholesaler of security products, Carda Canada Security Corporation in investigations and security, The Garda Security Group 1s a Security Agency and the General Partnership Societe en commandite Transport de Valeurs Garda is in the armoured cars and financial asset transport .
The relevant market is the prov1sion of security services, namely 1n the sector of transport of valuables with armoured cars and guards 1n the Province of Quebec, namely all of the western territory of that province.
The Respondents have restncted the market by forcmg customers to buy only from 1t and by effectively destroying competitors.
Resondents Garda use the multitude of corporate entit1es to gain control of the Respondent Bureau de Ia Securite Pnvee by acting as independent persons and appearing to represent the majority of market actors.
The Respondent Garda caused me to lose my competitor company by causmg a malicious prosecution to be filed against my former company BCIA and having suppliers refuse to provide any finance.
Furthermore, the Respondent has ensured that its former employees , officers or directors, be appointed as regulators of the other Respondent Bureau de Ia Securite Prive
As such, I have now been denied access to permits and licensing causing all poss1ble competition to be restrained to the point of inviability.
The Respondent has ensured that only 1tself obtains the necessary permits and authonzations to prov1de any kmd of services in competition to the Respondent.
As a result , in the relevant market of the Province of Quebec, it is impossible to offer services 1n competition to the Respondent other than by joining it.
3. The economic theory of the case is that by restra ining and eliminating competitors, the Respondent IS in a position to dom1nate the market and command the prices of its choosing , depriving the consumers of choice and the market of competition .
4 The Applicant prays the Tribunal to make an Order grantmg him Leave to bring an application under s.7 7 of the Competition Act against the Respondent.
--- -----------------------
Montreal April 5, 2019 ~!(U(,. SEMPE!RLEX ATTORNfYS LLP (Me Felipe Morales 194336-7) 410 rue Sain-Nicolas #1 08 Montreal QC H2Y 2P5 Tel. 514-373-2058 Fax 514-819-8806 fmorales@semperlex.ca
TO· BUREAU DE LA SECURITE PRIVEE 6363 Route Transcanadienne #206 Montreal QC H4T 1Z9
-AND TO: GARDA WORLD SECURITY CORPORATION GARDA WORLD INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION GARDA WORLD SECURITY CORPORATION GARDA CANADA SECURITY CORPORATION THE GARDA SECURITY GROUP SOCIETE EN COMMANDITE TRANSPORT DE VALEURS GARDA GARDAALARM SERVICES CORPORATION GARDAALARM SERVICES CORPORATION 1390 rue Barre Montreal QC H3C 1 N4
AFFIDAVIT OF LUIGI COREITI I, the undersigned LUIGI CORETTI of the C1ty of Laval , Prov1nce of Quebec, hereby make oath and affirm the follow1ng :
1 I am the Applicant in the present application for leave. 2. I am a former Member of the Canadian Armed Forces. 3. I also have law enforcement experience w1th Investigations Canada for over twelve years
4. In 1997. I founded and was the main shareholder of Bureau Canadien d '!nvest1gation et Ajustements-BCIA- which was operating m both Quebec and Ontario
5 S1nce 2014, I have acted as a volunteer commissioner with the Algonquin Regional Authority.
6 I also act with various bodies of the United Nations in matters of security and investigation as well as anti-corruption task forces like UNTOC and UNCAC
7. From 1985 to 2010, I had a permit issued by the Respondent Bureau de Ia Securite Privee.
8. On or about April 2010 a representative of the Respondent Gardaworld made me an offer to acqUire BCIA wh1ch would have included tak1ng a job w1th Gardaworld . I have reasons to believe this offer was made after Respondent Gardaworld obtained privileged ins1de information about my company, which had grown to over 1600 employees, by the Caisse Desjadins.
9 I refused the offer, but was led to believe the Respondent Gardaworld would make me regret that decis1on.
10. In 2010. BC IA was put under receivership by Ia Ca1sse des polic1ers et polcieres de Montreal
11 . Then . m 2012 I was investigated. charged and indicted for accusations of fraud following the accusations made in the receivership by the Caisse .
12. I contested the accusations vigorously and relentlessly. 13 On November 21 . 2016 the accusations were stayed and were never renewed .
14. During the course of the criminal accusations that were stayed, I obtained information showing that Gardaworld has used resources and lobbying to have current and former employees or officers as directors of the Respondent Bureau de Ia Secuite Privee
15. I also learned that Respondent Gardaworld 's then or former employees Guy Cote, Robert St-Jean and Andre Bouchard were also officers and directors of my accuser the Caisse des policiers et polcieres de Montreal.
16. After the dismissal of the case , with no criminal record . I re-applied to obtain a permit to work again as a security agent or guard.
17. On January 18, 2017, the Respondent Bureau de Ia Securite Privee responded denying my application arguing that my training was too long ago and I could not gain a license.
18. I have brought several court applications and remedies to contest that decis1on. 19. I have also learned that several current and former employees of the Respondent Gardaworld s1t on the Board of the Respondent Bureau de Ia Securite Privee.
20. I venly and truly believe that both Respondents are restricting competition in the Quebec market of security and services to favour and benefit Gardaworld
21 . All of the other facts alleged in the application are true. Solemnly affirmed before me in Montreal this 5th day of April 2019
PROPOSED NOTICE OF APPLICATION I l TII[CO 1PE1 1110 \"' BURI ·/\l Dl 1. . \ Sf·.CURil l: PRIV( 6363 Rout~: I ranscunudicnn~ Ouest Bur~au 206 h)ntrbl QC' 11-t I 1/f.:J
antl Ci ;\RDA WORLD SECURII Y CORPOR/\TIO C1ARD:\ WORI D I TI·Rt :\TIO . \1 CORPOR.~\T I O Ci i\I~D .\ \\'ORI.D SLCl Rll Y C'ORPOI~/\110 C.i/\RD,\ C.\\ ,\D.\ SITl 1n1 Y COR POR/\II01 Till: C!ARDt\ .TCl 'Rl l 1 CIROUP :OCII·:· I (: ~ COMMA Dll 'l : I'R:\ SI'ORT DL V.I\ I. EU RS Ci/\ RDA G.I\RIJ \ ,\1 /\R\1 SI· RVIC'L.' CORPOR/\ 1101\,J 111)0 rul' l3arr(·. t\lnntrea l ()( ' I L'lC I -1 Respondent :\PPI IC/\110'\J I·OR t\1\ ORDI R l ' DI.R Li t 1)1 R S.77 (3) OF 1111: COM PI~ TI riO /\C I
Court t-ile 1 umb~r: TRIB /\L
I . rhl! .'\pplit:ant. Luigi Cnn~tli d .!t: ting domicile at -II 0 rue Saint-~icnla~ tt I 08 in 1ontrcal. Quebec II:!Y 2P5 hereh) upplie:-. !'or km c !'rom thi:-. I r ihunnl to bring an application umh:r s. 77( 1 )-Mar~e t Restriction- of the< ' llmpetition/\ct against:
(it\RD/\ A !.t\RM TRVICI-:S CORPORA 110 ; UARD1\ WORI D . f'C'l 'RI'I Y CORPOR/\110 : G1\RD:\ \\ ORIJ) IJ\ II 1{\.1\ 110 ' i\1 CORPORt\1'1 01\: u /\RDt\ 'v\ 'ORI IJ Sl ClJRII Y CORPORAI I0 1 : GARDA(',\ t\D,\ SLCl 'RI I Y CORPORA riOl\: I'J IE GARDA 'ECUR ITY GROUP: SOC J(:Tf E COMf\1;\ Dl n: I Rt\. .' PORI DE i\LElJRS Ci ,\RD/\ and: Ci .'\RD1\ ,\1.:\RM. I R\ 'ICI S COR J>ORAI'IO.
t/\llcolh.::cti,c l) rekrrcu to as "(i/\RD/\"). ;\II ol' the G/\ RD/\ Rcspondenb hm·c their head nf'licc ut 1390 rue l~arr~ in the Cit) or \rlontrcal. J>rm in<.:c or Quehl!C and. as \\'ill he runher elaborated bclo\o\. act us unc ~.:o mn1u n en l i t) . I h is I\.:striction i:-. abo carril'd out by the Re..,pt111dcnt Ht ' Rl .\ U Dl I :\ Sl C'l Rill. J>RI\'11. n <)uehe~.: Cro\\11 Corporation ha,ing its head ol'li<.:c at 6363 Route I ran:-.canadil!nne Ouc:-.1. Bureau 206 in the Cit) ut' f\ l lllltn:al. ()Lh.:'bt.:~o: .
CiROlJ DS H)R II If·. .1\J>PI IC.'\11 0 :; l h~ 1\pp licum is an ~:--.p~.:rt in asset and rcrsonal s-:~.:urit: hm ing v.orkeJ as n pll licc ol'!icer and se<.:urit ~ agent !'oro' t:r I) years.
The App licant has pL'rsonal informati on nnd experience rcg<mling anti-competi ti ve and nwrl-.et rc~trietion rra~o:tice:-. ll r the Re~pomknts nureau de Ia . 'ccuri t0 Publiqu~ and Ciarda.
I he RL·s~wndcnt l~url!au dl! Ia Se<.:urit~ Jluhliquc is a Corporation that i · an agent nl' thl! Qu0bcc Cr0\\'11 w ho " ·as granted s tututor~ uuthorit; to grant or deny permits to e--:ercisl! thl! bU!'illC!'>:-. 0!' SCCUrit) and prO!Cl:lilll1 agl!lltS.
I hL' Re:-.pondcnt Hun:au Jc lu Sc<.:urit0 PuhliquL· has the 111lm~lpOI) on l i ~.:~nsing pl!rsnnnel and enterprises "hn "ish t~l prm ide the sen ices.
I he Rcspundcnt ()arua is the major and predominant suppli~.:r ol' asset and personal sccuri t;.. including the transportation or \uluabks and cum.::nc:. in armoured <.:ars \\hich inc lude:- armoun.:d car ~uppl;.. pcrsunnel \crilicatinn. pcrsnnal :-.ccuri t: sen ices and related itcllls such as C\l!nt protc~o: t ion . 1\!.-> per the dclin iti on:-. or s.~ ol'the Competition
.'\Ct. a product include a ~en ice and a suppl) incluJcs se lling. renting or ntllcr\\ i!->c prm iding or (I sen icc or orrer. (i/\RD/\ operates as n nct\\ork nf legal persons v. . hich decbr~ to operate in s~o!pa r:.tte sub-sectors or the sccurit) sen ices industr) . For e;:xa mpk Ut\RD/\ WORI.D SI·.CliR I I'Y CORPORAl ION is a holding that 0\\'llS sc,·cral (but not all) of the other corporations. Ci,\RD/\ WORI ]) I. I FRNJ\f!Ol'-1\ l CORPOR/d 10 . operates in the \\hok~nlc :-.cetnr nl' sccurit) equi pment saks. Ci/\RD/\ C.l\ .1\D.\ Sl Cl 1<1 I Y CORPORt\TIO in the suh- :-.~.:ctnr ()r in,~.::-.tigations ctntl per~ona l SL't:urit). 1111 · (j ,-\RJ),\ SI:..CURITY CiROL 'P is a S~.!curit) 1\ gcne: and the Lirn itl!J Partnership SUCI!'.'ll~ I:N CO 1 1/\l\ DIII · I R.\ l'-.'PORI Dl' V:\I.U 'R . Cit\RD:\ in the suhsecwr of arnll)un.:J cars nnd linam:ial ass~..·t transportation.
J'he rckntr lt market is tht.• pnl\ isillll or SCCUrit) SC I'\ ice-.. n;tmeJ) in the !-.\.:!Clor llf transport or' <.ll uabk:-. "ith arnwured cars and guan.ls in the Prm ince or Qut!bcc. name!) all ol'thc \\C:>tern tc tTi tor: o!'that prO\ incc.
The Respnndcnts ha\ e restricted the marJ..ct b) f'nrc ing customers lt} bu: onh thm1 it and b) ciYecti ' cl: dcstro: ing competitors.
!'he Rxsponlknt (i/\RD;\ causcJ me to In e lll) competitor compun) b) t:uusi ng u malicious pnbl:<.:ution to he Ji leJ again!'>t 111) l'ormer compt111) BCit\ and ha' ing suppli~r..; n.: t'usc to prm ide an~ li nancc.
I urthertTWr~. tht.' Re!-.pondcnt has ett!'>Urt.'U that it:-. J(,rnh:r t:lllployccs. ol'li~.:er~ or di rectors. he appuinted <b regula tor:-. llt' the other Re ptlndent l~ureau tle Ia SccuriLc Pri' ~.
Although Ci/\RD/\ open.llc:-. ;.ts a coonJi natl!cl and contm llcu single entity. it uses the multi plici t ~ or legal entities as being scparatL' and di-..tinct tn ensur~ ih oiTicers. shan.:holucr. . directors and agents (o r past orticers and direc tors) arc elec ted w the Board and Comrol or BURI·!\LJ Dl 1. .\ s !'~CURIT( PR IV( F and prt.'\Cilt competition in the rcle' ant market.
;\ s s u~.: h. I Ita' c tHl\\ been den ictl ncc~;;s tn re rm it!'> and Ii <xnsillg causing all possi hk competition to be re:-.truineJ to the poim ol'in' iabilit) .
I he Re. pondent has ensured that on!) itsc ll' obtains the nccessar: permit:-. und authori1.ations to prm.idc an ) ki nd or sl!l"\ ices in compctiti un to the Respondent. ,\ s u result. in thL· rcJc, nnt tnnrket lll. the J>n)\ inct.• or ()ucbec. it i-.. impo:-.:-.i hlc t<' uiTcr -;en icc:- in compctttinn IP tht.' R~..·:-.punden t lHhcr thun h~ .i<>ini ng it.
1. lh~ economic them~ or the ca~e i!-> that b) restruining and eliminating. competitor~. the Respondent is in u position to dominutc the market unc.l command the prices n!' it~ choosing. ckpri\ ing the cnn~umcrs or choieL' and the market or compt:tition. The case is or lmri/Ontul domination and COI1lrol or\\ hat i~ upposed to he independent regul<ttion or the market.
4. rhc .\pplicant pra) s the l'rihunal tn mnke an Order prohibiting the.? Rc~pnntlcnl!:. !'rom continuing ll) engage in market rc~triL·tiuns through licensing or ordering the Rcspumh:nt Bureau de 1:1 Securite Pri\ eL' tn authori;c nwrc comrKtitors to ( iarda in the Quebec market.
[Date]
1'0: IH IRr:Al r D l : l. i\ SL:CURIT( PRIVI.: I: 6.163 Route rran~can:1diennc lf.206 1\ l ontn~<:li QC' I I-+ I 1/.9
\\.;1) 10: Cii\RDA WORI.IJ SL:CURI I'Y CORPORATIO CARD/\ WORLD IN'! E l~ A 1'10 1\.L CORPORATIO Ci t\RD.s\ \\'ORI.D. ITl lRI I'Y C'ORPORAriON Ci. \RD/\ Ct\ '-. t\Dt\ . I ( 'l Rll Y ( 'OR POR:\ f I<) 1111 : C1 :\RU.\ .TCl 'RII Y CjROL P SOC IE 1 ( 1·: :-.: C'Or--1t\l /\ Dll l: I R/\ '\S POR r Dl · V,\l.l ·. lJRS Gi\RD1\ G,\RDt\ 1\LAR
SLRV!Cf·:S CORPORAI'IO. I ) l)tJ I'LIL' narrc
l\1ontrcal QC II.\(' I -+
MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW (a) Statement of the facts I. The Applicant Luigi Coretti is a professional of the financial asset transportation , personnel security and protection business.
II. The Respondent Garda is the dominant entity in this market in Quebec and other markets.
Ill. The Respondent Bureau de Ia Securite Privee is a legal person incorporated by a Quebec statute that has statuary power of regulation and licensing for any person or entity wishmg to operate 1n that business.
IV. As such, he established a business that was in direct and constant competition with Garda.
V. His corporation was put into receivership 1n what he has reasonable cause to believe was made at the request and with the support of Garda.
VI. Furthermore, he was the object of criminal accusations that were stayed and not reinstated .
VII. After these events, he attempted to obtain a new licence ISsued by the Respondent.
VIII. The Respondent has den1ed him a license purportedly due to the fact the Applicant's qualifications are too ancient and not contemporary
IX. The Applicant has also found that a great number of the Directors of the Respondent Bureau de Ia Securite Prive are former employees or officers of Garda.
X. The Applicant venly and truly believes that Garda exercises effective control and restrains the market in Quebec to itself in areas like armoured car transport and protection of financial assets.
(b) Statement of the Points in Issue • Is the Applicant directly and substantially affected by the conduct of the Respondents?
• Is the Applicant d1rectly and substantially prevented from entering the Quebec market for protection of financial assets (namely armoured cars, transportation , secunty) by a market restriction?
• If the above is affirmative , is the Market Restriction caused by the Respondents?
(c) Statement of the Submissions The Applicant wishes to be granted leave to make an application for Market Restnction, as he has been effectively barred from re-entering the Quebec Market due to the unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions 1mposed by a public corporation which appears to be proximate and sympathetic to the respondent Garda
The Applicant has been directly and significantly affected , and the Impugned conduct is a market restriction prohibited by s.77(3) of the Competition Act
The Respondent Bureau de Ia Securite Privee is subject to the Competition Act as stipulated in its section 3 1.
(d) Order Sought The Applicant requests the Tribunal make the following order LEAVE is hereby granted under s. 103.1 to the Applicant to serve and file a Notice of Application under s.77 of the Competition Act to the Respondents.
(e) List of Authorities • Symbol Technologies ULC v. Barcode Systems Inc. 2004 FCA 339 • Stargrove Entertainment v. Universal Music Publishing 2019 CACT 26 • Mrs O's Pharmacy v Pfizer Canada Inc. 2004 CACT 24 • National Capital News Canada v. Milliken 2002 CACT 41 • Canada (Director of Investigations and Resea rch ) v. Chrysler Canada Ltd . (1989) 27 C.P.R. (3d) 1
• Quinlan's of Huntsville Inc. v Fred Deeley Imports Ltd 2004 Camp. Trib 15 • Robinson Motorcycle Limited v. Fred Deeley Imports Ltd . 20014 Camp Trib 13
THE WHOLE RESPECTFULLY SUBMITIED Montreal th1s 1Oth day of Apnl 2019 SEMP5 LEXAVOCAT senctl Solicitors for Applicant