Northern Pool Express Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act et al., (1988) 26 O.A.C. 378 (CA)

JudgeDubin, A.C.J.O., Zuber and Robins, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)
Case DateJanuary 19, 1988
JurisdictionOntario
Citations(1988), 26 O.A.C. 378 (CA)

No. Pool Express v. Competition Act (1988), 26 O.A.C. 378 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Northern Pool Express Ltd., carrying on business as Trans Western Express and Northern Pool Express Ltd. (appellants) v. Director of Investigation and Research appointed under the Competition Act and the Attorney General of Canada (respondents)

TNT Canada Inc. (appellant) v. Director of Investigation and Research appointed under the Competition Act and the Attorney General of Canada (respondents)

Cottrell Transport Inc. (appellant) v. Director of Investigation and Research appointed under the Competition Act and the Attorney General of Canada (respondents)

(C.A. 696/87; 706/87; 693/87)

Indexed As: Northern Pool Express Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Dubin, A.C.J.O., Zuber and Robins, JJ.A.

January 27, 1988.

Summary:

The Director of Investigation and Research under the Competition Act searched three premises and seized records and other things pursuant to search warrants issued pursuant to s. 13 of the Act. The Director made copies of all documents and either returned or was prepared to return to their owners all the documents seized. The owners applied for an order that they were entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard in proceedings under s. 15 of the Act (application to retain the copies).

The trial judge dismissed the application. The owners appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.

Trade Regulation - Topic 9264

Enforcement - Search and seizure - Retention of seized documents - The Director of Investigation and Research seized records belonging to various parties pursuant to search warrants issued under the Competition Act - The Director copied the records and either returned or was prepared to return the records - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that in order to retain the copies the Director was not required to apply for and obtain a retention order from the court under s. 15(3) of the Act - See paragraphs 6 to 8.

Words and Phrases

Record - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the word "record" as defined in s. 2(1) and used in s. 15 of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, did not include photocopies made by the Director of Investigation and Research - The court held that the word "record" related only to material seized, whether or not those materials were copies or originals - See paragraph 7.

Statutes Noticed:

Competition Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, sect. 2(1) [paras. 3, 7]; sect. 13(1) [para. 3]; sect. 15 [paras. 3-4]; sect. 15(3) [paras. 4-6, 8-9]; sect. 16 [para. 3]; sect. 16(3) [para. 7].

Counsel:

J.F. Rook, Q.C., and Jeffrey M. McEown, for the appellants, Northern Pool Express and Trans Western Express;

John B. Laskin, for the appellant, TNT Canada Inc.;

D.S. Affleck, for the appellant, Cottrell Transport Inc.;

Sandra Simpson and Janet Johnston, for the respondents.

These appeals were heard before Dubin, A.C.J.O., Zuber and Robins, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal on January 19, 1988. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Zuber, J.A., on January 22, 1988, and released on January 27, 1988.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Understanding Section 8: Search, Seizure, and the Canadian Constitution
    • June 17, 2005
    ...........118, 121, 286 Cottrell Transport Inc. v. Director of Investigation & Research (1987), 19 C.P.R. (3d) 117 (Ont. H.C.J.), aff’d (1988), 26 O.A.C. 378.......................... 372 Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board) (1991), 81 D.L.R. (4th) 121, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5, 50 ......
  • Appendices
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Understanding Section 8: Search, Seizure, and the Canadian Constitution
    • June 17, 2005
    ...ex parte , see, e.g., Cottrell Transport Inc. v. Director of Investigation & Research (1987), 19 C.P.R. (3d) 117 (Ont. H. C. J.), aff’d 26 O.A.C. 378 (C.A.), however notice to the person from whom the thing seized may be given in the discretion of the judge, see Re Competition Act, s. 17(3)......
  • Northern Pool Express Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act et al., (1988) 88 N.R. 318 (Motion)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • April 26, 1988
    ...Investigation and Research appointed under the Competition Act and the Attorney General of Canada , a case from the Ontario courts. See 26 O.A.C. 378. See Bulletin of Proceedings taken in the Supreme Court of Canada at page 738, April 29, 1988. Motion dismissed. [End of document] 0in 0.0000......
1 cases
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Understanding Section 8: Search, Seizure, and the Canadian Constitution
    • June 17, 2005
    ...........118, 121, 286 Cottrell Transport Inc. v. Director of Investigation & Research (1987), 19 C.P.R. (3d) 117 (Ont. H.C.J.), aff’d (1988), 26 O.A.C. 378.......................... 372 Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board) (1991), 81 D.L.R. (4th) 121, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5, 50 ......
  • Appendices
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Understanding Section 8: Search, Seizure, and the Canadian Constitution
    • June 17, 2005
    ...ex parte , see, e.g., Cottrell Transport Inc. v. Director of Investigation & Research (1987), 19 C.P.R. (3d) 117 (Ont. H. C. J.), aff’d 26 O.A.C. 378 (C.A.), however notice to the person from whom the thing seized may be given in the discretion of the judge, see Re Competition Act, s. 17(3)......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT