Documentation

Informations sur la décision

Contenu de la décision

Attention : ce document est disponible en anglais seulement.

March 13, 2026

VIA EMAIL Competition Tribunal 17 th Floor, 333 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa Ontario K1A 0G7

55 University Avenue, Suite 600 Toronto, Ontario M5J 2H7 www.sotosclassactions.com

Jean-Marc Leclerc Phone: 416-977-6857 Email: jleclerc@sotos.ca

Assistant: Jeanine Alphonse Phone: Email: jalphonse@sotos.ca

File No:

30373

Dear Registry Officer: Re: The Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) v. Apple Canada Inc et al. Competition Tribunal File No.: CT-2025-007

We represent the applicant in this proceeding and are writing with the consent of counsel for the respondents and counsel for the Commissioner. Further to the Tribunal’s direction dated March 6 th to provide a proposed schedule for events to complete the leave application process, counsel propose the following schedule, which follows from the Tribunal’s pending decision on the applicant’s request to adduce additional evidence and a revised memorandum of fact and law:

Tribunal issues decision on the applicant’s request to adduce additional evidence and file a revised memorandum of fact and law

Applicant files additional evidence (if permitted by the Tribunal) and a revised memorandum of fact and law

Respondents file motion to adduce responding evidence under Rule 119 Applicant files response to respondents’ motion to adduce responding evidence under Rule 119

Day X

Day X+10

Day X+24 Day X+31

Respondents file responding representations, including responding evidence Day X+66 (if permitted by the Tribunal)

Commissioner files representations (if any) Applicant files reply

Day X+80

Yours truly, SOTOS LLP

Jean-Marc Leclerc JL/geMc

cc

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

5710692.1 LEGAL_49072693.2

Sotos Class Actions is a practice group of Sotos LLP

 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.