Case Documents

Decision Information

Samuelson-Glushko - Letter from Samuelson-Glushko responding to the reply of Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Inc. to the response of Samuelson-Glushko to Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Inc.'s informal motion requesting leave to file supplementary affidavit evidence in an application for leave

Collection Case Documents
Date Filed 2026-04-16
File Number CT-2025-007
Document Type Motions and Related Documents
Type of Application Leave to Make Application
Section(s) of the Competition Act Section 103.1 - Leave to make an application under section 74.1, 75, 76, 77, 79 or 90.1
Proceeding Number 47

Decision Content

This decision uses a PDF as its source file. To print it properly, please download the source file by clicking the PDF icon located in the bottom-right corner of the decision header.

55 University Avenue, Suite 600

Toronto, Ontario M5J 2H7

www.sotosclassactions.com

Louis Sokolov

Phone: 416.572.7316

Email: lsokolov@sotos.ca April 15, 2026

2026-04-16 Assistant: Jeanine Alphonse VIA EMAIL 2025-007 Phone: 416.977.5333 ext. 250

Competition Tribunal

17th Floor 333 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G7

47 Email: jalphonse@sotos.ca File No: 30373

Dear Registry:

Re: The Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic v. Apple Canada Inc. et al. – Competition Tribunal File No.: CT-2025-007

We understand that the moving parties Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Inc. (collectively, “Apple”)

have sought to file a reply submission. There was no right of reply provided for in the Tribunal’s Direction dated March 16, 2026, nor is it permitted under the Tribunal’s rule 81. As we have

advised Apple, this should not have been filed without the Tribunal's permission.

Yours truly, SOTOS LLP

Louis Sokolov

LS/ja

cc. Éric Vallières, Neil Campbell, Samantha Gordon, William Wu, McMillan LLP Paul Klippenstein, Kevin Hong, Competition Bureau Legal Services

Sotos Class Actions is a practice group of Sotos LLP

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.