Documentation

Informations sur la décision

Contenu de la décision

Attention : ce document est disponible en anglais seulement.

SCHEDULE "B" THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF an application by the Director of Investigation and Research, for orders pursuant to sections 92 and 105 of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 as amended;

AND IN THE MATTER OF the acquisition by ADM Agri-Industries, Ltd. of the milling assets of Maple Leaf Mills Inc.

B E T W E E N : THE DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH Applicant and ADM AGRI-INDUSTRIES, LTD. Respondent

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN PECMAN

2. I, John Pecman, of the City of Nepean, in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY:

1. I am a senior commerce officer with the Competition Bureau (the "Bureau") of the Department of Industry Canada.

2. I am the officer in charge of conducting the examination and assessment of the acquisition by Adm agri-industries, ltd. of the milling assets of Maple Leaf Mills Inc.

3. As such, I have knowledge of the information contained in the statement of grounds and material facts attached as Schedule A and in the Consent Order Impact Statement attached as Schedule D to the Director's application for a consent order pursuant to sections 92 and 105 of the Competition Act and verily believe to the best of my knowledge the said information to be true.

SWORN BEFORE ME at the City of ) Hull, in the Province of Quebec, ) on the day of March, 1997. ) ) ) John Pecman Commissioner for Taking ) Affidavits, etc. )

SCHEDULE "C" THE COMPETITION TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF an application by the Director of Investigation and Research, for orders pursuant to sections 92 and 105 of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 as amended.

AND IN THE MATTER OF the acquisition by ADM Agri-Industries, Ltd. of the milling assets of Maple Leaf Mills Inc.

B E T W E E N : THE DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH Applicant and ADM AGRI-INDUSTRIES, LTD. Respondent

DRAFT CONSENT ORDER

 Vous allez être redirigé vers la version la plus récente de la loi, qui peut ne pas être la version considérée au moment où le jugement a été rendu.