Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

COMPETITION

Culhane v. ATP Aero Training Products Inc.

T-1491-01

2004 FC 535, O'Keefe J.

6/4/04

20 pp.

Action for declaration defendants' free on-line Canadian aviation exam guides on internet contrary to Competition Act, s. 50(1)(c), for permanent prohibitory injunction and for damages pursuant to Act, s. 36(1)(a)--Plaintiff author of practice exam guides used by Canadian pilots to prepare for regulatory testing--Defendants authors of line of pilot exam preparation guides--Offering free on-line exam guides in return for e-mail address for future marketing to potential customers--Whether defendants' conduct amounting to predatory pricing--Application of five factors set out in Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Inc. (1988), 83 C.P.R. (3d) 51 (Ont. Gen. Div.) to establish predatory pricing in civil suit--(1) Defendants engaged in business (of selling aviation products)--(2) Defendants engaged in policy of selling products even though giving practice exams away for free, based on traditional sale of exam guides for a price and continued updating of exam guides on-line--(3) Pursuant to policy, products sold at unreasonably low prices--Linden J., in Regina v. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (Nos. 1 & 2) (1981), 33 O.R. (2d) 694 (C.A.), held reasonableness of price objective matter--Application of factors listed in Hoffmann-La Roche to determine reasonableness of price--As to actual difference between production or accounting cost and sale price, that exam guides given away for free suggesting unreasonably low price--As to whether significant length of time during which sales at questionable prices take place, defendants intending to offer exam guides free for indefinite period of time--Longer price decrease lasts, more suspect it becomes-- As to circumstances of sale, drop in selling price in defensive price-cutting situation may be reasonable, but same price cut in offensive price-cutting situation may be unreasonable--Here, defendants' price-cutting offensive, since not in reaction to any price decrease implemented by plaintiff or anyone else in marketplace--As to whether external or long-term economic benefits will accrue to seller by reducing prices below costs, defendants claiming free on-line exams will aid in increasing future sales of products--No evidence free give-aways increased sales of defendants' other products now or in future--In conclusion, free on-line exam guides constituting selling at unreasonably low price--(4) Policy has effect or tendency of substantially lessening competition or eliminating competitor--No evidence defendants had such a design or that conduct had such effect--(5) Defendants' unreasonably low pricing causes loss or damage to plaintiff--Although number of factors advanced for drop in sales, unable to ascertain from evidence defendants' unreasonably low pricing caused loss or damages to plaintiff--No breach of Act, s. 50(1)(c)--As to whether defendants unlawfully interfering with plaintiff's economic interests, application of four elements set out in Whistler Cable Television Ltd. v. Ipec Canada Inc. (1992), 75 B.C.L.R. (2d) 48 (S.C.)--Interference with plaintiff's trade or business--Giving away of free on-line exams, late payment of invoices, abuse of plaintiff's rebate and return policies not amounting to interference with plaintiff's trade or business-- Unlawful means--Since no breach of s. 50(1)(c), plaintiff failed to establish unlawful means--Intent to injure plaintiff-- No intention by defendants to injure plaintiffs--Actual injury --Since low pricing not causing loss or damage to plaintiff, no actual injury to plaintiff--Action dismissed--Competition Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-34, ss. 1 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 19, s. 19), 36(1)(a), 50(1)(c).

 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.