PUBLIC
Page 1
CT-2021-002
THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
IN THE MATTER OF the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the acquisition of Tervita Corporation by SECURE Energy Services Inc;
AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by the Commissioner of Competition for an order pursuant to section 92 of the Competition Act;
BETWEEN
THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION
Applicant/ Responding Party
- and -
SECURE ENERGY SERVICES INC.
Respondent/ Moving Party
MOTION RECORD OF SECURE Energy Services Inc. (to the Applicant’s Motion for Answers to Questions from the Examination for Discovery of SECURE Energy Services Inc.)
BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP
199 Bay Street Suite 4000, Commerce Court West Toronto, ON M5L 1A9
Robert E. Kwinter
PUBLIC
Page 2
Phone: (416) 863-3283 Fax: (416) 863-2653 Email: rob.kwinter@blakes.com
Nicole Henderson Phone: (416) 863-2399 Email: nicole.henderson@blakes.com
Brian A. Facey Phone: (416) 863-4262 Email: brian.facey@blakes.com
Joe McGrade Phone: (416) 863-4182 Email: joe.mcgrade@blakes.com
Counsel for the respondent SECURE Energy Services Inc.
TO:
THE REGISTRAR OF THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL Thomas D'Arcy McGee Building 90 Sparks Street, Suite 600 Ottawa, ON K1P 5B4
AND TO: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CANADA Competition Bureau Legal Services Place du Portage, Phase I
PUBLIC
Page 3
50 Victoria Street, 22 nd Floor Gatineau, Quebec K1A 09C
Jonathan Hood Tel: (416) 954-5925 Fax: (416) 973-5131 Email: jonathan.hood@cb-bc.gc.ca
Paul Klippenstein Tel: (819) 934-2672 Email: paul.klippenstein@cb-bc.gc.ca
Lawyers for the Applicant, the Commissioner of Competition
TABLE OF CONTENTS Tab Description 1. Response of SECURE Energy Services Inc. 2. Affidavit of Cullen Schreiter, affirmed January 27, 2022 A. Undertakings Chart of the SECURE Energy Services Inc. delivered on January 14, 2022
3.
B. Excerpt from the spreadsheet entitled “Employee Cost Tracker Report for Dean” found at Tab 72 of the Commissioner of Competition’s Discovery Binder C. List of SECURE Energy Services Inc. facilities that are the subject of the “hypothetical divestiture order” found at Tab 145 of the Commissioner’s Discovery Binder
Written Representations of SECURE Energy Services Inc.
Page 4
THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
CT-2021-002
Page 5
IN THE MATTER OF the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER OF the acquisition of Tervita Corporation by SECURE Energy Services Inc.;
AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by the Commissioner of Competition for an order pursuant to section 92 of the Competition Act.
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION Applicant/Responding Party - and - SECURE ENERGY SERVICES INC. Respondent/Moving Party
RESPONSE OF SECURE ENERGY SERVICES INC. (Re: Answers to Questions from the Examination of Discovery of SECURE Energy Services Inc.)
THE GROUNDS ON WHICH SECURE ENERGY SERVICES INC. OPPOSES THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION’S MOTION ARE:
1. On June 29, 2021, the Commissioner of Competition (the “Commissioner”) filed an Application with this Tribunal challenging the proposed acquisition of Tervita Corporation by SECURE Energy Services Inc. (“SECURE”) pursuant to section 92 of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34;
PUBLIC - 2 -
Page 6
2. SECURE responded to the Application and maintains that the Application ought to be dismissed in its entirety;
3. On December 20 through 22, 2021, David Engel, the representative of SECURE, was examined for discovery by counsel to the Commissioner;
4. During the examination, SECURE provided certain undertakings, and refused or took other questions under advisement;
5. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order of the Tribunal dated October 12, 2021, SECURE delivered its answers to undertakings on January 14, 2022;
6. SECURE has provided the Commissioner with proper and complete responses to all undertakings;
7. SECURE has provided and/or will provide the Commissioner with proper and complete responses to some questions taken under advisement or refused;
8. The questions listed in the charts contained in the Commissioner’s Motion Record seek information that is irrelevant to issues raised in the pleadings, improperly seek opinion evidence, require speculation, or are vague and/or unfair;
9. SECURE should not be compelled to answer any questions beyond those questions it has already answered and/or agreed to answer in its undertakings chart;
nd Supp.), as
10. Subsections 8 and 8.1 of the Competition Tribunal Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 19 (2 amended;
11.
Rules 2(1), 34, and 64 of the Competition Tribunal Rules, SOR/2008-141, as amended;
12.
13.
PUBLIC - 3 -
Rules 240 and 242 of the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106, as amended; and
Such further and other grounds as the counsel may advise and this Tribunal may permit.
Page 7
THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be used at the hearing of the motion:
14.
15.
16.
The affidavit of Cullen Schreiter affirmed January 27, 2022, and the exhibits thereto;
The pleadings herein; and,
Such further and other material as counsel may advise and this Tribunal may permit.
January 27, 2022
BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP Barristers & Solicitors 199 Bay Street, Suite 4000 Commerce Court West Toronto, Ontario M5L 1A9
Robert E. Kwinter Phone: (416) 863-3283 Email: rob.kwinter@blakes.com
Nicole Henderson Phone: (416) 863-2399 Email: nicole.henderson@blakes.com
Brian A. Facey Phone: (416) 863-4262 Email: brian.facey@blakes.com
Joe McGrade Phone: (416) 863-4182 Fax: (416) 863-2653 Email: joe.mcgrade@blakes.com
Lawyers for the Respondent, SECURE Energy Services Inc.
TO:
AND TO:
PUBLIC - 4 -
THE REGISTRAR OF THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL Thomas D'Arcy McGee Building 90 Sparks Street, Suite 600 Ottawa, ON K1P 5B4
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CANADA Competition Bureau Legal Services Place du Portage, Phase I 50 Victoria Street, 22 nd Floor Gatineau, Quebec K1A 09C
Page 8
Jonathan Hood Tel: (416) 954-5925 Fax: (416) 973-5131 Email: jonathan.hood@cb-bc.gc.ca
Paul Klippenstein Tel: (819) 934-2672 Email: paul.klippenstein@cb-bc.gc.ca
Lawyers for the Applicant, the Commissioner of Competition
THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
CT-2021-002
Page 9
IN THE MATTER OF the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER OF the acquisition of Tervita Corporation by SECURE Energy Services Inc.;
AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by the Commissioner of Competition for an order pursuant to section 92 of the Competition Act.
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION Applicant/Responding Party - and - SECURE ENERGY SERVICES INC. Respondent/Moving Party
AFFIDAVIT OF CULLEN SCHREITER (Sworn January 27, 2022)
I, CULLEN SCHREITER, of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY:
1. I am a lawyer at Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP (“Blakes”), counsel to the Respondent SECURE Energy Services (“SECURE”) in this Application. As such, I have knowledge of the matters to which I herein depose. Where I do not have personal knowledge, the information set out below is based on my information and belief, and I verily believe it to be true.
PUBLIC - 2 -
Page 10
2. I am advised by Nicole Henderson, a Partner at Blakes and counsel to the Respondent, and believe:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
The Commissioner of Competition (the “Commissioner”) has commenced an application under section 92 of the Competition Act to challenge a transaction through which SECURE acquired all of the outstanding shares of Tervita Corporation;
Pursuant to a Scheduling Order of Justice Gascon dated October 12, 2021, and agreed to by the parties, David Engel was examined for discovery on behalf of SECURE on December 20 through 22, 2021;
During the examination, SECURE gave the undertakings set out in SECURE’s undertakings chart;
During the examination, SECURE took a number of questions under advisement and refused to answer others;
Pursuant to the Scheduling Order of the Tribunal dated October 12, 2021, SECURE delivered its answers to undertakings on January 14, 2021; and
SECURE has provided and/or will provide the Commissioner with proper and complete responses to some questions taken under advisement or refused.
3. Attached as Exhibit “A” to my affidavit is SECURE’s undertakings chart. I am advised by Ms. Henderson and believe that this chart sets out all the answers to undertakings,
PUBLIC - 3 -
Page 11
under advisements and refusals arising therefrom that SECURE has served up to January 23, 2021.
4. Attached as Exhibit “B” to my affidavit is an excerpt of the spreadsheet entitled “Employee Cost Tracker Report for Dean” showing the information at lines 19-31 of the first tab in that spreadsheet that were the subject of the Commissioner’s Category I questions and was found at Tab 72 of the Commissioner’s Discovery Binder.
5. Attached as Exhibit “C” to my affidavit is the list of SECURE facilities that was the subject of the Commissioner’s “hypothetical divestiture order” in his Category II and was found at Tab 145 of the Commissioner’s Discovery Binder.
6. I swear this affidavit for the purposes of SECURE’s response to the Commissioner’s motion to compel answers to questions refused during the discovery of SECURE’s representative, and for no other purpose.
SWORN remotely by ) Cullen Schreiter ) at the City of Toronto ) in the Province of Ontario, before me ) on January 27, 2022 in accordance ) with O. Reg. 431/20, Administering ) Oath or Declaration Remotely ) ) )
Cullen Schreiter
A commissioner for taking affidavits Victoria Turner LSO# 80336H
PUBLIC
Page 12
This is Exhibit “A” to the Affidavit of
Cullen Schreiter Affirmed on January 27, 2022
PUBLIC
Page 13
CT-2021-002 THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER OF the acquisition of Tervita Corporation by Secure Energy Services Inc.;
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by the Commissioner of Competition more orders pursuant to section 92 of the Competition Act.
fo B r one o r
BETWEEN: l THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION v e Applicant – and – L e SECURE ENERG i Y a SERlVICES INC. t Respondent e n ANSWERS TO UNDE d RTAKINGS FROM THE EXAMINATION OF DAVE ENGEL i HELD DECEMBER 20-22, 2021 f o a n C
PUBLIC
Page 14
PUBLIC
Page 15
PUBLIC
Page 16
PUBLIC
Page 17
PUBLIC
Page 18
a C o
PUBLIC
Page 19
C
PUBLIC
Page 20
PUBLIC
Page 21
PUBLIC
Page 22
PUBLIC
n ti
fid e
n C o a
Page 23
PUBLIC
Page 24
PUBLIC
Page 25
C o
PUBLIC
l L tia
e n
n fid
Page 26
C o a
PUBLIC
Page 27
CT-2021-002
THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
IN THE MATTER OF the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the acquisition by Secure Energy Services Inc. of all of the issued and outstanding shares of Tervita Corporatio n; B
AND IN THE MATTER OF an applicatio ln by the Commissioner of Competition for one or more orders pursuant to section 9e2 of the Competition Act. v
BETWEEN: L e THE COM a MISS lIO NER OF COMPETITION ti Applicant – and – e nSECURE ENERGY SERVICES INC. id Respondent
n f a
C o
ANSWERS TO UNDERTAKINGS FROM THE EXAMINATION OF DAVE ENGEL HELD DECEMBER 20-22, 2021
PUBLIC
Page 28
This is Exhibit “B” to the Affidavit of
Cullen Schreiter Affirmed on January 27, 2022
PUBLIC
Page 29
PUBLIC
Page 30
This is Exhibit “C” to the Affidavit of
Cullen Schreiter Affirmed on January 27, 2022
PUBLIC
Page 31
THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
CT-2021-002
Page 32
IN THE MATTER OF the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER OF the acquisition of Tervita Corporation by SECURE Energy Services Inc.;
AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by the Commissioner of Competition for an order pursuant to section 92 of the Competition Act.
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION Applicant/Responding Party - and - SECURE ENERGY SERVICES INC. Respondent/Moving Party
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS OF THE RESPONDING PARTY SECURE ENERGY SERVICES INC. (Motion for Answers to Questions from the Examination for Discovery of Secure Energy Services Inc.)
PUBLIC - 2 -
Page 33
OVERVIEW 1. The Commissioner of Competition seeks answers to two categories of questions which are overbroad, disproportionate, and irrelevant. The first category amounts to nothing more than a fishing expedition, seeking the personal information of former employees who have no reasonable prospect of possessing knowledge relevant to this case. The second category demands that SECURE perform a detailed business analysis for hypothetical and vaguely defined divestiture scenarios, which neither SECURE nor the witness have conducted, and which should properly be the subject of expert evidence. SECURE was entitled to refuse these questions, and they need not be answered.
PART I – FACTS
A.
Procedural background
2. The Commissioner has commenced an application under section 92 of the Competition Act challenging a transaction through which SECURE acquired all the outstanding shares of Tervita (the “SECURE/Tervita Merger”). The trial of the application is scheduled to begin in May 2022.
3. In this application, the Commissioner seeks an order to “dissolve” the SECURE/Tervita Merger. In the alternative, he seeks an order that SECURE “dispose of such assets of SECURE as are required for an effective remedy in all the circumstances.” 1 The Amended Notice of Application does not specify what assets the Commissioner would seek to require SECURE to dispose of.
1 Amended Notice of Application, Preamble, Motion Record of the Commissioner of Competition, Tab 2, Affidavit of Mallory Kelly affirmed January 21, 2022 [Kelly Affidavit], Exhibit “A”, p 12.
PUBLIC - 3 -
Page 34
4. SECURE denies that the SECURE/Tervita Merger has or will prevent or lessen competition substantially, and has also pleaded that the significant efficiencies generated by the transaction will greatly outweigh any anticompetitive effects alleged by the Commissioner. 2 The Commissioner continues to deny that the SECURE/Tervita Merger will generate efficiencies cognizable under section 96 the Competition Act, at least to the extent claimed by SECURE. 3
5. SECURE has produced to the Commissioner extensive documentation regarding its plans to integrate the former Tervita business and the synergies and efficiencies it has realized, and expects to realize in the future, as a result. On the Commissioner’s earlier application under section 104 of the Competition Act, SECURE also proffered an expert report from Andrew Harington of the Brattle Group, a recognized expert in the quantification of efficiencies.
6. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order of Justice Gascon dated October 12, 2021, and agreed to by the parties, Mr. David Engel was examined on behalf of SECURE on December 20 through 22, 2021. 4 SECURE delivered its answers to undertakings on January 14, 2022, including answers to seventy-eight undertakings, as well as answers to five questions which were taken under advisement, and answers to eight questions which were initially refused. 5
B.
Questions refused
7. The Commissioner’s motion concerns two categories of questions properly refused by SECURE during Mr. Engel’s examination:
2 Response of SECURE Energy Services Inc. dated September 15, 2021, para 3, Motion Record of the Commissioner of Competition, Tab 2, Kelly Affidavit, Exhibit “B”, p 36. 3 Reply of the Commissioner of Competition dated September 20, 2021, paras 11-12, Motion Record of the Commissioner of Competition, Tab 2, Kelly Affidavit, Exhibit “C”, p 52. 4 Affidavit of Cullen Schreiter, sworn January 27, para 2(b), Responding Motion Record of SECURE Energy Services Inc., Tab 2 [Schreiter Affidavit]. 5 Schreiter Affidavit, Exhibit “A”.
PUBLIC - 4 -
Page 35
(a) First, a request that SECURE provide the contact information of 13 former SECURE and/or Tervita employees whose positions were identified on a SECURE planning spreadsheet for elimination as a result of the integration process following the SECURE/Tervita Merger. 6
(b) Second, a series of questions requiring SECURE to identify and analyze the effects of a “hypothetical divestiture order” on its integration plans and loss of efficiencies that might result. To frame these questions, the Commissioner’s counsel put to Mr. Engel for the first time a list of SECURE waste disposal facilities, including (the “Hypothetical Divesture Order”). 7 Counsel asked Mr. Engel to assume that the Tribunal ordered divestiture of these facilities and then put to him a series of questions asking him to “provide all the facts related to savings that would be lost” in various categories if that order were issued. 8
8. Earlier in his examination, Mr. Engel had already given evidence that SECURE’s integration plans and efficiencies forecasts were the product of input and analysis from a number of individuals at SECURE and required the exercise of business judgment and institutional knowledge. 9 In response to the Commissioner’s questions about the Hypothetical Divestiture Order, Mr. Engel stated that he could not answer broad questions about how such an order would affect SECURE’s integration plans without knowing more about the nature of the divesture.
6 Schreiter Affidavit, Exhibit “B”. 7 Schreiter Affidavit, Exhibit “C”. 8 Transcript from the Examination of David Engel on December 22, 2021, 443:23-445:13, Kelly Affidavit, Exhibit “F” [Engel Examination – Day 3], p 497-499. 9 Transcript from the Examination of David Engel on December 21, 2021, 276:4-277:14, 282:7-282:16, 283:7-283:22, 284:2-284:12, 323:20-324:8, Motion Record of the Commissioner of Competition, Tab 2, Kelly Affidavit, Exhibit “E”, pp 330-331, 336, 337, 338, 377-378.
PUBLIC - 5 -
Page 36
Counsel for SECURE also stated on behalf of the Respondent that SECURE had not performed any analysis to identify the effects that the Hypothetical Divestiture Order would have on SECURE’s integration plans. 10
PART II – ISSUES IN DISPUTE
9. The sole issue before the Tribunal is whether SECURE should be compelled to answer the questions listed in Appendix A to the Commissioner’s Notice of Motion.
PART III – SUBMISSIONS
B. Category I: Commissioner’s request for the contact information of former employees
10. A party is required to provide contact information for potential witnesses under the Federal Courts Rules, only when that individual may reasonably be expected to have knowledge relating to a matter in issue in these proceedings. 11 Here, the Commissioner seeks contact information for 13 private individuals whose positions were eliminated as part of SECURE’s integration of the former Tervita business.
11. There is no evidentiary foundation and no logical reason to believe that any of these individuals have knowledge relating to a matter in issue on this application. The only issue to which the termination of employees could possibly be relevant is the efficiencies arising from the SECURE/Tervita Merger. In this regard, the Commissioner claims that these individuals may
10 Engel Examination – Day 3, 445:14-458:2, pp 499-512. 11 Federal Court Rules, SOR 98-106, s 240(b), Book of Authorities of the Respondent SECURE Energy Services Inc. [Respondent BOA], Tab 11.
PUBLIC - 6 -
Page 37
have knowledge of “their [sic] nature of the duties they performed prior to the merger, as well as circumstances surrounding their termination and its relation to the merger”. 12
12. There is no evidence to suggest that these individuals were involved in SECURE’s integration planning or were familiar with SECURE’s integrations plan and targets. There is no reason to believe they have any knowledge relating to the business reasons for their termination. SECURE could have responded to factual questions regarding the roles of specific individuals and the rationale for their termination – the Commissioner did not ask these questions of Mr. Engel. The request for contact information amounts to nothing more than a fishing expedition for the Commissioner to reach out to former employees of SECURE and Tervita.
13. The request for the personal contact information of 13 former employees is disproportionate and disregards the legitimate privacy interest these individuals possess with respect to their contact information. The Commissioner frames the request as proportionate, given that he has “only” requested information for 13 individuals, and that their information would be protected by a confidentiality order. This misses the point. The request is disproportionate with respect to each individual as it violates their privacy interest in their personal information. Here, the Commissioner would subject these 13 individuals to unsolicited calls from a government agency asking probing questions about their recent termination from their employment. This is clearly a disproportionate invasion of privacy given the speculative basis for the Commissioner’s questions.
14. While the Federal Court Rules require providing contact information for potential witnesses, these Rules do not justify sharing the contact information and intruding on the privacy
12
Commissioner Memorandum of Fact and Law, para 15.
PUBLIC - 7 -
Page 38
of individuals for the type of fishing expedition the Commissioner seems to have in mind. This type of fishing expedition should not be countenanced, even at the discovery stage. 13
C. Category II: Commissioner’s request for cost savings analysis from a hypothetical divestiture order
15. The second category of questions relates to the Hypothetical Divestiture Order, which contains a list of facilities, This facility list is not included in the motion record for the application and was put to Mr. Engel for the first time on discovery. The Commissioner proceeded to ask Mr. Engel to conduct an analysis with respect to multiple categories of cost savings that would be lost relating to this extensive list of facilities. SECURE should not be required to answer these questions for three reasons.
16. First, Mr. Engel did effectively respond to these questions. He stated that he was unable to answer the questions given their breadth and the lack of detail relating to the specific divestiture order (which is understandable given that the order does not exist). At various times in this course of questioning, Mr. Engel stated:
(a) “I guess you are asking me to assess a hypothetical situation and give facts related to it? I don’t understand how that would be possible.” 14
(b) “I don’t know that I could give you a meaningful answer to that question, just given how many potential variables could apply to a hypothetical situation in divestiture. It is pretty broad.” 15
13 14
See M. (A.) v Ryan, [1997] 1 SCR 157 at para 37, Respondent BOA, Tab 5. Engel Examination – Day 3, 445:10-445:13, p 499.
PUBLIC - 8 -
Page 39
(c) “Without knowing the nature of the divestiture, I don’t know that I could answer that question… if you narrow it down to a specific scenario, I might be able to give you an answer” 16 .
The questions were only refused when the Commissioner continued to ask Mr. Engel to conduct this hypothetical analysis on the spot once he had answered that he could not.
17. Second, both the Federal Court and Competition Tribunal have confirmed that questions seeking expert analysis or opinions are impermissible on discovery. 17 The quantification of savings (synergies and efficiencies) to be realized as a result of the SECURE/Tervita Merger has already been the subject of an expert report (by Mr. Harington) and will likely be the subject of further expert evidence on this application. To ask Mr. Engel to conduct an analysis in real time of what savings might be lost through a hypothetical divestiture of waste disposal facilities is not only an improper question for a lay witness, but it was most unfair to Mr. Engel.
18. The Commissioner’s attempt to characterize these questions as seeking only disclosure of facts is unavailing. All the questions in this category required Mr. Engel to analyze and speculate based on vague hypotheticals. Further, each was in substance a request that he identify efficiencies that would be lost if the Hypothetical Divestiture Order were issued. For example, the Commissioner asked Mr. Engel to “provide all the facts related to savings that would be lost in corporate labour savings if the Hypothetical Divestiture Order was issued.” Most of the other
15 Engel Examination – Day 3, 449:17-449:21, p 503. 16 Engel Examination – Day 3, 450:5-450:8, p 504. 17 Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v WL Gore & Associates, Inc., 2015 FC 1176 at para 19, Respondent BOA, Tab 1; Canada (Director of Investigation & Research) v NutraSweet Co., [1989] CCTD No 54 at paras 23, 38, Respondent BOA, Tab 3; The Commissioner of Competition v Vancouver Airport Authority, 2017 Comp Trib 16 at para 69, Respondent BOA, Tab 9.
PUBLIC - 9 -
Page 40
questions in this category follow the same form. Particularly considering the breadth of the Hypothetical Divestiture Order, this question clearly calls for considerable analysis.
19. Canada (Director of Investigation & Research) v Southam Inc is instructive in this regard. 18 In Southam, the Tribunal upheld refusals of questions requesting subjective opinions masquerading as questions of fact. The Tribunal upheld refusals of questions such as “has the circulation of Southam dailies remained stable” and whether circulation between certain newspapers was comparable were rightly refused, on the basis that asking for a witness to draw conclusions is inappropriate. 19 The Tribunal also upheld the refusal of a question asking for document production of every document that might be relied on to support allegations that competition would be substantially lessened, on the basis that this question was complex, and “while factually based, is likely to be formed with the assistance of expert evidence”. 20 Accordingly, the Tribunal upheld the refusal.
20. It is unreasonable and improper for the Commissioner to ask Mr. Engel complex questions regarding the efficiencies which would be lost in the case of a poorly defined Hypothetical Divestiture Order. If the Commissioner provides his own economic analysis with respect to a properly defined hypothetical divestiture order, SECURE will then be able to provide expert evidence on the subject at the appropriate time.
PART IV – ORDER REQUESTED 21. SECURE requests that the applicant’s motion be dismissed, with costs.
18 Canada (Director of Investigation & Research) v Southam Inc., 1991 CarswellNat 1583 (FC), [1991] CCTD No 16, Respondent BOA, Tab 4 [Southam]. 19 Southam at para 13. 20 Ibid at para 18.
PUBLIC - 10 -
Page 41
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 27th day of January, 2022.
Per:
Robert E. Kwinter Nicole Henderson Brian A. Facey Joe McGrade
Counsel to the Respondent/Moving Party, SECURE Energy Services Inc.
PUBLIC - 11 -
Page 42
List of Authorities
1. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v WL Gore & Associates, Inc., 2015 FC 1176.
2. Canada (Director of Investigation & Research) v NutraSweet Co., [1989] CCTD No 54.
3. Canada (Director of Investigation & Research) v Southam Inc., 1991 CarswellNat 1583 (FC), [1991] CCTD No 16.
4. M. (A.) v Ryan, [1997] 1 SCR 157.
5. The Commissioner of Competition v Vancouver Airport Authority, 2017 Comp Trib 16.