CT-2012-002 THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, as amended; IN THE MATTER OF an application by the Commissioner of Competition pursuant to section 79 of the Competition Act;
IN THE MATTER OF certain policies and procedures of Reliance Comfort Limited Partnership
B E T W E E N: THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION Applicant and
RELIANCE COMFORT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTICE OF MOTION TAKE NOTICE THAT Reliance Comfort Limited Partnership (“Reliance”) will make a motion to the Competition Tribunal, at a date, time, location and in a manner directed by the Tribunal. THE MOTION IS FOR THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: 1. An Order, pursuant to Rule 221(1)(a) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, striking out the Notice of Application (“Application”) brought by the Commissioner of Competition (“Commissioner”) against Reliance on December 20, 2012;
Respondent
-2-2. In the alternative, an Order that the Commissioner amend the Application so as to clearly and completely identify and define: (a) all product and geographic markets Reliance is alleged to substantially and completely control for the purposes of the Application; and (b) all policies, procedures, fees, charges and any other acts relied upon by the Commissioner in support of the allegation that Reliance has or is engaged in a practice of anti-competitive acts for the purpose of the Application, and to include a concise statement of economic theory as required by sub-rule 36(2)(d) of the Competition Tribunal Rules. 3. In the further alternative, an Order pursuant to Rule 181(2) of the Federal Courts Rules that the Commissioner provide the further and better particulars demanded in the Demand for Particulars served by Reliance on the Commissioner on January 25, 2013 and attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; 4. An Order extending the time for Reliance to serve and file its response to the Application; 5. The costs of the motion on a solicitor and client basis; and 6. Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and the Tribunal may permit. THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE: 1. The Commissioner, by his Application, seeks an Order pursuant to sections 79(1), 79(2) and 79(3.1) of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 (the “Act”) against Reliance. 2. In the absence of the pleading of a relevant market for the purpose of the
-3-Application, the Application discloses no reasonable cause of action upon which an Order under section 79 of the Act can issue. 3. For an order to issue under section 79 of the Act, the Commissioner must prove all three criteria set out in section 79(1) of the Act, namely: (a) that Reliance substantially or completely controls throughout Canada or any area thereof, a class or species of business; (b) that Reliance has engaged in or are engaging in a practice of anti-competitive acts; and (c) that practice has had, is having or is likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially in a market. 4. The pleading of a cognizable market is a necessary element of an application under section 79 of the Act. It is therefore incumbent upon the Commissioner to plead sufficient material facts upon which the relevant geographic and product market or markets can be unambiguously identified and defined. 5. Sub-rule 36(2)(d) of the Competition Tribunal Rules requires that a Notice of Application set out a concise statement of economic theory. The Commissioner’s purported statement of economic theory is no more than a summary of the Application. The requirement for the inclusion of a concise statement of economic theory is a requirement distinct from pleading the grounds for the application and the material facts on which the Commissioner relies. The Application Provides No Basis by Which the Tribunal Could Establish a Relevant Geographic Market
6. The Commissioner does not plead sufficient material facts from which a discernible geographic market could be established by the Tribunal. Further, the Commissioner
-4-has not pled any economic theory in support of any such market. Without having pled the material facts necessary for the finding of a relevant market, the Commissioner is unable to demonstrate that Reliance has violated section 79(1), with the result that the Application discloses no reasonable cause of action. 7. The Notice of Application at paragraphs 29, 31 and 32 states that for the purposes of the Application the Relevant Market is an aggregate of these undefined markets. 8. The Commissioner purports to define the relevant geographic markets as: i. the local markets of Ontario where Union Gas distributes natural gas; and ii. certain other local rural markets in Ontario. This suggests a plurality of markets. By a letter dated January 22, 2013, counsel for the Commissioner sought to clarify the boundaries of the market described as “other local rural markets in Ontario” by noting that they are “those that are not supplied natural gas”. 9. The Commissioner does not plead sufficient material facts from which the Tribunal could reasonably ascertain the geographical boundaries of “the local markets of Ontario where Union Gas distributes natural gas”. The only facts pled in support of this market definition are at paragraph 13 of the Application, where it is pled that those areas of Ontario where Union Gas distributes natural gas is within “the area corresponding generally to parts of the following: Northern Ontario, from the Manitoba border to the North Bay/Muskoka area; Southwestern Ontario, from Windsor to west of the Greater Toronto Area; and Eastern Ontario, not including Ottawa” (emphasis added). 10. The facts pled at paragraph 13 of the Application are insufficient to establish a
-5-cognizable geographic market for purposes of section 79 of the Act. First, the use of the phrase “corresponding generally to parts of” itself indicates that the description that follows fails to completely or accurately define the Commissioner’s intended geographic market; yet no material facts have been pled as to the areas of the proposed geographic market that do not generally correspond to the description (either because the description is too broad or too narrow). Second, the date on which Union Gas’ service areas purportedly determine the boundaries of the market is not provided, notwithstanding that the markets served by Union Gas’ distribution network are continually evolving. Third, terms such as “Southwestern Ontario, from Windsor to west of the Greater Toronto Area” do not propose any actual geographic limiters, such as a line on a map or border cities in all directions, by which the Tribunal could define a geographic market. Fourth, the Commissioner has not pled any facts as to either the number of relevant local markets or where in the area described at paragraph 13 of the Application those local markets are located. 11. The Commissioner defines the second relevant geographic market as “certain other local rural markets in Ontario”. Again, this suggests a plurality of markets. This is imprecise, and not supported by material facts which would allow the Tribunal to define a geographic market within which to evaluate Reliance’s market power and conduct. The Commissioner has pled no facts in the Application pertaining to the meaning of “local rural” markets which would allow such markets to be defined by the Tribunal for purposes of section 79 of the Act. 12. In a letter dated January 22, 2013, counsel for the Commissioner advised that “certain other local rural markets in Ontario” are “those that are not supplied natural gas”. However, this statement offers no means by which the areas can be
-6-ascertained, and no further facts on which the Tribunal could define such markets. Further, such a geographic market is inconsistent with the definition of product market proposed by the Commissioner, as gas water heaters, which are claimed to be part of the product market in such areas, require the supply of natural gas. 13. In light of the foregoing, on the facts pled by the Commissioner, it is impossible to determine the relevant geographic market or markets in which Reliance is alleged to have substantially or completely controlled any product market and in which the anti-competitive acts it is alleged to have engaged in could have had, are having or are likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially.. The Application Provides No Basis by Which the Tribunal Could Establish a Relevant Product Market
14. Although the Application should be struck out on the basis of its failure to plead facts which would allow the Tribunal to define a relevant geographic market, the Application also fails to plead facts which would allow the Tribunal to define a relevant product market, providing a further ground on which it should be struck. 15. The Commissioner purports to define the relevant product market within which Reliance’s market power and conduct should be evaluated as the supply of “natural gas and electric water heaters and related services to residential consumers”. At paragraphs 10 and 29 of the Application, related water heater services are stated to “include” installation, repair, maintenance and disconnection services (emphasis added). This suggests that the relevant product market is either a bundled market or a series of bundled markets. 16. The Application does not propose any limits on the services claimed to be related to the supply of natural gas and electric water heaters to residential consumers.
-7-Reliance sells other related products and services, such as heating systems. No facts are pled to establish which services are in fact related to the supply of such equipment. Nor is any economic theory posed upon which to support the Commissioner’s product market definition. 17. It is impossible for the Tribunal to engage in an assessment of Reliance’s control of any purported market without a clear description of the totality of products and/or services alleged to form part of the relevant product market. As such, it is impossible for the Tribunal to determine whether Reliance has market power in a relevant product market for purposes of section 79(1)(a), or whether the anti-competitive acts it is alleged to have engaged in could have had, are having or are likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially in a market. The Application Fails To Disclose a Reasonable Cause of Action 18. As the Commissioner has failed to plead any or any sufficient material facts to support the proposed definitions of the relevant geographic or product markets upon which he intends to rely, and has not provided a concise statement of economic theory to support his allegations, it follows that the Application discloses no reasonable cause of action and should be struck pursuant to Rule 221(1)(a) of the Federal Courts Rules. In the Alternative, the Commissioner Must Amend the Application to Resolve Ambiguities
19. In the event that the Tribunal decides not to strike out the Application, the Tribunal should exercise its discretion under section 9(2) of the Competition Tribunal Act to require the Commissioner to amend the Application to resolve both the considerable
-8-uncertainties described above with respect to the Commissioner’s definitions of the relevant product and geographic markets, as well as ambiguities as to the scope of the conduct engaged in by Reliance that is alleged to constitute a practice of anti-competitive acts. 20. In order for Reliance to appropriately and meaningfully respond to the Application and to engage in the necessary factual and economic analysis, it must understand the precise nature of the allegations against it. As currently pled, the allegations made in the Application against Reliance are materially incomplete. Demand For Particulars in the Further Alternative 21. On January 25, 2013 Reliance served the Commissioner with a Demand for Particulars in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (“the Demand”). Without such particulars Reliance cannot meaningfully respond to the Commissioner’s allegations. 22. In the further alternative, Reliance therefore seeks an order that the Commissioner respond to the Demand by within a time to be specified by the Tribunal. 23. Section 8 and subsection 9(2) of the Competition Tribunal Act. 24. Rules 34(1), 36(2) and 82 to 88 (inclusive) of the Competition Tribunal Rules, SOR/2008-141. 25. Rules 181 and 221 of the Federal Courts Rules. 26. Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and the Tribunal may permit. DATE: January 28, 2013 BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Barristers and Solicitors 40 King Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 3Y4
-9-ROBERT S. RUSSELL Tel: (416) 367-6256 Fax: (416) 361-7060 RENAI WILLIAMS Tel: (416) 367-6593 Fax: (416) 682-2831 DENES ROTHSCHILD Tel: (416) 367-6350 Fax: (416) 361-7068 ZIRJAN DERWA Tel: (416) 367-6049 Fax: (416) 361-2755 Counsel for Reliance Home Comfort Limited Partnership
TO: COMPETITION BUREAU LEGAL SERVICES Department of Justice 50 Victoria Street Gatineau, QC K1A OC9
DAVID R. WINGFIELD Tel: (819) 994-7714 Fax: (819) 953-9267 JOSEPHINE A. L. PALUMBO Tel: (819) 953-3902 Fax: (819) 953-9267 PARUL SHAH Tel: (819) 953-3889 Fax: (819) 953-9267
CT-2012-002 THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, as amended; IN THE MATTER OF an application by the Commissioner of Competition pursuant to section 79 of the Competition Act;
IN THE MATTER OF certain policies and procedures of Reliance Comfort Limited Partnership
B E T W E E N: THE COMMISSIONER OF COMPETITION Applicant and
RELIANCE COMFORT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
DEMAND FOR PARTICULARS The Respondent, Reliance Home Comfort Limited Partnership (“Reliance”) demands that pursuant to Rule 181(2) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 and also pursuant to Rule 36 of Competition Tribunal Rules, SOR/2008-141 the Commissioner of Competition (“Commissioner”) serve and file further and better particulars of the allegations in the Notice of Application filed on December 20, 2012, as follows:
Respondent
-2-Demand 1: In paragraph 10 the Commissioner states that most residential consumers who rent or purchase a water heater also obtain related water heater services ‘including’ installations, repair, maintenance and disconnection. Similarly, in paragraph 29, the Commissioner has defined the purported product market to include water heater related services. The Commissioner pleads that these related services ‘include’ installation, disconnection, maintenance and repair of water heaters. By using the term ‘including’ and ‘includes’ the Commissioner has failed to identify all of the other services that fall within the ambit of “related services”. Please provide particulars with respect to paragraphs 10 and 29 as to: (a) Identify the other services which are distinguished from “installation, disconnection, maintenance and repair of water heaters”; and, (b) Confirm that each of these other services are contained within the alleged aggregated product market. Demand 2: In paragraph 31 of the Application the Commissioner purports to define the relevant geographic markets as (i) the local markets of Ontario where Union Gas distributes natural gas; and (ii) certain other local rural markets in Ontario. In paragraph 13 the Commissioner has identified the area where Union Gas distributes natural gas as the area corresponding generally to parts of Northern Ontario, from the Manitoba border to the North Bay/Muskoka area; Southwestern Ontario, from Windsor to west of Greater Toronto Area; and Eastern Ontario, not including Ottawa. The Commissioner has not pleaded any facts on the number
-3-of local markets or where in this area these local markets are located. Please provide particulars with respect to paragraph 13 and 31 as to: (a) Geographic identifiers such as postal codes, census tract or names of streets and roads to identify the parameters and identity of these local markets. (b) The communities that Union Gas serves are identified on its corporate website as of January 2013 as listed in Exhibit ‘A’ hereto. Please confirm whether Exhibit ‘A’ completely and accurately defines the communities referred to as “the local markets of Ontario where Union Gas distributes natural gas”. (c) Please further confirm with reference to the list of communities identified in Exhibit ‘A’, whether the “local markets of Ontario where Union Gas distributes natural gas” include the totality of the communities identified. For example, Exhibit ‘A’ lists Peel Region as a community, which in turn includes the cities of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon. For example, Exhibit ‘A’ lists Peel Region as a community, notwithstanding that Peel Region includes the cities of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon. Please confirm wherever such a municipal region is listed in Exhibit ‘A’ whether the cities, towns and communities that comprise that municipal region are intended to be included in the definition of “the local markets of Ontario where Union Gas distributes natural gas”.
-4-Demand 3: In paragraph 31 of the Application the Commissioner purports to define the Relevant Geographic Market to include the aggregate of (i) the local markets of Ontario where Union Gas distributes natural gas; and (ii) certain other local rural markets in Ontario. The Commissioner has pled no further facts in the Application to identify or indicate where in Ontario these local rural markets are located. In a letter dated January 22, 2013, Ms. Palumbo advised that the boundaries of “certain other local rural markets in Ontario” are “those that are not supplied natural gas”. A copy of that letter is Exhibit ‘B’ hereto. This further confuses the stated market definition. Paragraph 29 of the Application states that the relevant product market for the purposes of the Application is the aggregated market of the supply of gas and electric water heaters and related services. If the geographic market includes “local rural markets in Ontario where natural gas is not supplied”, is it the position of the Commissioner that there are no substitutes for electric water heaters in these local rural markets, as obviously gas water heaters cannot be deployed. The relevant product market as defined is inconsistent with this suggested clarification. Please provide particulars with respect to paragraph 14 and 31 as to: (a) Geographic identifiers such as postal codes, census tract or names of streets and roads to identify the parameters and identity of the ‘other local rural markets’. (b) Whether that Commissioner takes the position as indicated by the letter from Ms. Palumbo on January 22, 2013 that in areas that are not supplied by natural gas there are no substitutes for electric water heaters.
-5-Demand 4: In paragraph 17 of the Application the Commissioner alleges that Reliance creates significant barriers to the return of its water heaters through the use of its RRN Return Policy. In this paragraph the Commissioner uses the phraseology ‘among other things’ and therefore fails to identify all of the ways in which it is alleged the RRN Return Policy creates barriers to return Reliance’s water heaters. Please provide particulars with respect to paragraph 17 as to: (a) Identify the ways other than those listed in (i) to (iv) by which it is alleged the RRN Return Policy creates significant barriers to the return of Reliance’s water heaters. Demand 5: In paragraph 20 of the Application the Commissioner alleges that Reliance imposes arbitrary restrictions on the return process at its return depots. In this paragraph the Commissioner uses the word ‘including’ and therefore fails to identify all of the alleged arbitrary restrictions. Please provide particulars with respect to paragraph 20 as to: (a) Identify the other alleged arbitrary restrictions imposed by Reliance. Demand 6: In paragraph 22 the Commissioner alleges that Reliance levies multiple and unwarranted exit fees and charges to impede, prevent and deter customers from switching to competitors and to penalize competitors. The Commissioner alleges these charges
-6-‘include’ damage; account closure; drain, disconnection and pick-up as well as extra billing charges. Please provide particulars with respect to paragraph 22 as to: (a) The other alleged charges imposed by Reliance upon which the Commissioner intends to rely.
Demand 7: In paragraph 34 of the Application the Commissioner pleads that Reliance controls 76% of the Relevant Market based on ‘annual revenues’. The Commissioner pleads no further facts to identify what these annual revenues represent.
Please provide particulars with respect to paragraph 34 as to: (a) Is this alleged revenue based on revenue from rental customers in the aggregate or based on annual sales of water heaters? (b) Is the basis of the market share approach based on Reliance’s installed base of customers or on its annual sales of water heaters? (c) Identify which of the alleged markets to which this 76 % market share relates. (d) Identify the specific years on which these annual revenue figures are based. Demand 8: In paragraph 40 the Commissioner pleads that Reliance implemented ‘certain water heater policies and procedures’ which were prohibited by the Direct Energy Consent Order, but does not plead any facts as to which policies and procedures he is referring to.
-7-Please provide particulars with respect to paragraph 40 as to: (a) The specific return policies and procedures implemented by Reliance which are alleged to have been prohibited by the Direct Energy Consent Order; (b) The specific return policies and procedures implemented by Reliance which are alleged to have been similar to those prohibited under the Direct Energy Consent Order;
Demand 9: In paragraphs 46, 49 and 56 the Commissioner alleges Reliance’s exclusionary water heater return policies have caused at least ‘two competitors’ to exit the Relevant Market. The Commissioner further asserts that Reliance has impeded and prevented ‘several competitors’ from entering or expanding in the Relevant Market. No facts have been pled regarding these allegations.
Please provide particulars with respect to paragraphs 46, 49 and 51 as to: (a) a complete list of the ‘two competitors’ who have purported to leave the alleged Relevant Market due to Reliance’s exclusionary water heater return policies and procedures including in each instance: i. the name of the competitor ii. the date on which the competitor is alleged to have exited the market iii. each separate local market or local rural market in Ontario forming part of the Commissioner’s aggregated geographic market from which the competitors are alleged to have exited.
-8-(b) a complete list of the ‘several competitors’ who Reliance have purported to have impeded and prevented from entering or expanding in the alleged Relevant Market including in each instance: i. the name of the competitor ii. the date on which the competitor is alleged to have exited the market iii. each separate local market or local rural market in Ontario forming part of the Commissioner’s aggregated geographic market from which the competitors are alleged to have exited.
DATE: January 25, 2013 BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Barristers and Solicitors 40 King Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 3Y4
ROBERT S. RUSSELL Tel: (416) 367-6256 Fax: (416) 361-7060 RENAI WILLIAMS Tel: (416) 367-6593 Fax: (416) 682-2831 DENES ROTHSCHILD Tel: (416) 367-6350 Fax: (416) 361-7068 ZIRJAN DERWA Tel: (416) 367-6049 Fax: (416) 361-2755 Counsel for Reliance Home Comfort Limited Partnership
-9-TO: COMPETITION BUREAU LEGAL SERVICES Department of Justice 50 Victoria Street Gatineau, QC K1A OC9
DAVID R. WINFIELD Tel: (819) 994-7714 Fax: (819) 953-9267 JOSEPHINE A. L. PALUMBO Tel: (819) 953-3902 Fax: (819) 953-9267 PARUL SHAH Tel: (819) 953-3889 Fax: (819) 953-9267
Union Gas CONDITIONS OF SERVICE
January 1, 2013
1. About our Area and Gas Services 1.1 Area Served by Company As outlined in these conditions of service, Union Gas has an adequate supply of gas to serve its customers, and has properly installed pipe and piping according to the appropriate legislative requirements. Union Gas supplies gas to over 400 communities within the 230 municipalities where Union Gas holds a franchise agreement. These are considered traditional place names and may not in all cases reflect the current names of these communities.
Communities Aberfoyle Bayham Twp Acton Beachville Adelaide Twp Beardmore Ailsa Craig Belleville Alberton Bentinck Twp Aldborough Twp Berwick Alma Bewdley Alvinston Blandford-Bien Twp Amabel Twp Banshard Twp Amherstburg Blenheim Amherstview Blezard Valley Ancaster Blind River App in Bloomfield Arkona Bloomingdale Arran Twp Blue Mountains Artemesia Twp Blyth Arthur Bosanquet Twp Arthur Twp Bothwell Astra Bracebridge Atherley Branchton Atikokan Brant Twp Atwood Brantford Awrey Twp Brantford Twp Ayr Breslau Azilda Brigden Baden Brighton Balmertown Brights Grove Baltimore Brockville Barwick Brooke Twp Batawa Brookville Bath Bruce Mines Bayfield Brussels
Burford Burford Twp Burgess ville Burks Falls Burlington Cache Bay Caledonia Callander Calstock Cambridge Camden Twp Camlachie Campbellville Canboro Canborough Twp Canfield Cannifton Capreol Caradoc Twp Cardinal Carlisle Carrick Twp Castleton Cathcart Cayuga Cayuga N Twp Cayuga S Twp Cedar Springs Centralia Centreton Chaput Hughes Charing Cross Conditions of Service Page 5
Charlotteville Twp Drayton Chatham Dresden Chatham Twp Dryden Chatsworth Du art Chelmsford Dumfries N Twp Chesterville Dumfries S Twp Clifford Dundas Clinton Dunn Twp Cobalt Dunnville Cobourg Dunwich Twp Cochenour Durham Cochrane Dutton Colborne Ear Falls Colborne Twp Earlton Colchester N Twp East Wawanosh Twp Colchester S Twp Easthope N Twp Collingwood Twp Easthope S Twp Conestogo Echo Bay Coniston Eden Copetown Egmondville Copper Cliff Egremont Twp Corbyville Ekfrid Twp Cornwall Elgin burg Corunna Ellice Twp Courtland Elliot Lake Courtright Elma Twp Crediton Elmira Crysler Elora Culross Twp Emo Cumberland Beach Englehart Dashwood Enniskillen Twp Dawn Twp Eramosa Twp Delaware Twp Erie Beach Delhi Erieau Derby Twp Espanola Dereham Twp Essex Desbarats Euphemia Twp Deseronto Exeter Devlin Falconbridge Dorchester Fauquier Dorchster N Twp Fergus Dorion Finch Dover Centre Fisherville Dover Twp Flamborough Dowling Flamborough W Twp Downie Twp Flesherton
Floradale Florence Forest Fort Frances Foxboro Frankford Freelton Fullarton Twp Gananoque Garafraxa W Twp Garden River Garson Georgetown Geraldton Glanbrook Twp Glen Williams Glencoe Glenelg Twp Goderich Goderich Twp Gosfield S Twp Gowanstown Grafton Grand Bend Gravenhurst Greensville Grey Twp Guelph Guelph Twp Hagersville Haileybury Hallebourg Halton Hills Hamilton Hanmer Hanover Harrisburg Harriston Harrow Harty Harwich Twp Hawkesville Hay Twp Hearst Heidelberg Hensall Conditions of Service Page 6
Hepworth Levack Hibbert Twp Linwood Highgate Lis towel Hillier Lively Holland Twp Lobo Twp Hoity re Logan Twp Hornell Heights Londesborough Howard Twp London Howick Twp London Twp Hullett Twp Long Sault Huntsville Longford Mills Hurkett Long lac Huron Park Lowbanks Ignace Lowville Ingersoll Lucan Ingleside Lynden lnkerman Lynedoch lnnerkip Ma doc Inwood Maitland Iron Bridge Mannheim Iroquois Markdale Iroquois Falls Markstay Jarvis Marmora Jerseyville Maryborough Twp Joyceville Maryhill Kakabeka Falls Matheson Kapuskasing Mattawa Keewatin Mattice Kenora Maynard Kent Bridge McGillivray Twp Keppel Twp McKillop Twp Kilbride Meaford Kilsyth Merlin Kilworth Metcalfe Twp Kilworth Heights Middleport Kingston Middleton Twp Kingsville Mild may Kirkland Lake Millgrove Kitchener Milton Komoka Minto Twp La Salette Mitchell Lakeport Mitchell's Bay Lakes ho re Monteith Langton Moonbeam Lasalle Moore Twp Leamington Mooretown
Morewood Morpeth Morris Twp Morrisburg Morriston Mosa Twp Moulton Twp Mount Brydges Mount Elgin Mount Forest Mount Hope Mount Pleasant Murillo Nairn Centre Nanticoke Napa nee Naughton Neebing New Dundee New Hamburg New Liskeard Newburgh Newbury Nichol Twp Nipigon Nissouri W Twp Norfolk Twp Normanby Twp North Bay North Buxton North Cobalt Norval Norwich Norwich N Twp Norwich S Twp Norwich Twp Novar Oakland Oakland Twp Oakville Odessa Oil City Oil Springs Oliver Paipoonge Onaping Oneida Twp Conditions of Service Page 7
Onondaga Twp Red Rock Opasatika Red Lake Orford Twp Ridgetown Orillia Rockwood Orkney Rodney Orland Romney Twp Orrville Rondeau Park Otterville Roseville Owen Sound Rothsay Oxford Southwest Twp Rutherglen Paincourt Salem Palmerston Sarawak Twp Paris Sarnia Parkhill Sauble Beach Parry Sound Saugeen Twp Peacock Point Sault Ste. Marie Peel Twp Schumacher Petersburg Scotland Petrolia Seaforth Picton Sebringville Pilkington Twp Selby Pinewood Selkirk Plainfield Seneca Twp Plattsville Shallow Lake Plympton Twp Shanty Bay Point Edward Sherbrooke Twp Porcupine Shrewsbury Porquis Junction Shuniah Twp Port Dover South Mountain Port Elgin South Porcupine Port Hope South River Port Lambton Southampton Port Rowan Southwold Twp Port Ryerse Springford Port Stanley St Agatha Port Sydney St Andrews West Powassan St Clements Prescott St George Princeton St Jacobs Puslinch Twp St Marys Quinte West St Thomas Rainham Twp St Vincent Twp Rainy River St Williams Raleigh Twp Stanley Twp Rama Stephen Twp Ramo re Stirling
Stockdale Stoney Creek Stratford Strathroy Stratton Sturgeon Falls Sudbury Sullivan Twp Sundridge Swastika Sydenham Twp Tara Tavistock Tecumseh Teeswater Teeterville Temagami Thamesford Thamesville Thedford Thessalon Thornbury Thorne Thunder Bay Tilbury Tilbury E Twp Tillsonburg Timmins Townsend Townsend Twp Trenton Trout Creek Tuckersmith Twp Tupperville Turnberry Twp Tweed Usborne Twp Val Caron Val Gagne Val Rita Val Therese Vanastra Vermilion Bay Verner Vickers Heights Vittoria Conditions of Service Page 8
Wahnapitae Wellington Winterborne Walkerton West Lorne Woodhouse Twp Wallace Twp West Montrose Woodlawn Wallaceburg Westbrook Woods lee Wallenstein Westlake Woodstock Walpole Twp Westminster Town Wooler Walsingham Wheatley Woolwich Twp Walsingham N Twp Whitefish Wyoming Walsingham S Twp Wiarton Yarmouth Twp Wardsville Wilkesport York Warren Williams E Twp Zone Twp Warwick Twp Williams W Twp Zorra Twp Waterdown Williamsburg Zorra-Tavistock East Waterford Wilmot Twp Zurich Waterloo Winchester Watford Windham Twp Wellesley Windsor Wellesley Twp Wingham Conditions of Service Page 9
l+I Ministere de la Justice Department of Justice Cote de securite - Security classification Canada Canada PROTEGE B - PROTECTED B Bureau de la concurrence Competition Bureau Notre reference - Our file Services juridiques Legal Services BIMS No.: 3106658 Place du Portage, Tour I Place du Portage, Phase 22e etage I 50, rue Victoria 22nd Floor Date: 13/01/22 (ANYY-MM-JJDD) Gatineau QC K1AOC9 50 Victoria Street Telephone/T elecopieur Telephone/Fax Gatineau, QC K1AOC9 (819) 994-7714 (819) 953-9267 PROTECTED AND CONFIDENTIAL VIA EMAIL Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West, 44th Floor Toronto, Ontario MSH 3Y4
Attn.: Mr. Robert S. Russell Dear Mr. Russell: Re: The Commissioner of Competition v. Reliance Comfort Limited Partnership (CT/002) I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 18 January 2013 in relation to the above-noted matter and specifically your query regarding the definition of the relevant geographic markets for the supply of natural gas and electric water heaters contained in paragraph 31 (ii) of the Notice of Application (the "Application"). When read in the context of the Application itself and in particular paragraph 9, we believe that the relevant geographic markets have been adequately described and therefore the Application meets the provisions of Rule 36(2)(c) of the Competition Tribunal Rules. Nevertheless, for the avoidance of any doubt that you might have on this point, the "certain other local rural markets in Ontario" in paragraph 31 (ii) refers to the local rural markets in Ontario that are not supplied natural gas. We trust the above responds to your query. Yours truly, Josephine AL. Palumbo Senior Counsel cc. David R. Wingfield, Executive Director and Senior General Counsel, Department of Justice Parul Shah, Counsel, Department of Justice
Canada