Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Alleged conspiracy between Apple and Google regarding default search engine agreements and Canadian search advertising prices.

• Claims of breach of sections 45-46 of the Competition Act due to these agreements.

• Plaintiff seeks damages under section 36 of the Competition Act, for unlawful means conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and for Quebec class members, under the Civil Code of Québec.

• Application brought by Apple to strike the plaintiff’s second amended notice of civil claim for failure to disclose a reasonable claim.

• The court considered the complexity of the issues, including related U.S. proceedings and amendments to the Competition Act.

• The court dismissed Apple’s application to strike, allowing the matter to proceed to the scheduled certification hearing.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties

Spark Event Rentals Ltd. filed a case in September 2021 against Apple Inc. and Apple Canada Inc. The plaintiff alleged a conspiracy between Google LLC, Google Canada Corporation, and Apple, where Apple allegedly agreed not to compete with Google in general internet search engines and search advertising services. The plaintiff claimed that this led to Google charging advertisers in Canada supra-competitive prices for search ads. The plaintiff alleged that a series of agreements between Google and Apple, under which Apple made Google the default search engine on various Apple devices and Google paid Apple a share of the revenue generated from the searches, amounted to a breach of sections 45-46 of the Competition Act. The plaintiff sought to recover damages under section 36 of the Competition Act, as well as damages for the common law tort of unlawful means conspiracy, restitution for unjust enrichment, exemplary and punitive damages, and, for class members in Québec, recovery of damages under the extra-contractual liability provision of the Civil Code of Québec.

Procedural history

The case was filed in September 2021. The court set various procedural steps, including deadlines for certification application materials and applications for production of documents and a stay of proceedings. The action was stayed against Google following a hearing in May 2023, with the stay process running from July 2023 to December 2024. The plaintiff then served an application to lift the stay and a further amended notice of civil claim in February 2025. In March 2025, the plaintiff served the defendants with a further affidavit in support of their certification application. In May 2025, Apple served application materials to strike the pleadings. The sequencing application was heard on July 18, 2025.

Key legal issues

Apple applied to strike the plaintiff's second amended notice of civil claim for failure to disclose a reasonable claim, pursuant to Rule 9-5 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, before the certification hearing scheduled to occur over five days beginning on July 20, 2026. The court considered whether the pleadings satisfied the required elements of the various causes of action, including breach of the Competition Act, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment, and the impact of amendments to the Competition Act. The court also considered the complexity of the applications, the potential for delay and increased costs, and whether striking the claims would promote judicial efficiency.

Outcome

The court dismissed Apple’s application to strike the plaintiff’s second amended notice of civil claim. The court found that the issues raised were complex and intertwined, and that striking the claims at this stage would not necessarily lead to greater efficiency or a simplified certification process. The court determined that the applications to strike should be heard within the context of the scheduled certification hearing.

Costs and damages

No costs or damages were awarded in this decision. The judgment addressed only the procedural issue of whether the plaintiff’s claim should be struck prior to certification and did not address the merits of the underlying claims or any monetary relief.

Conclusion

The plaintiff, Spark Event Rentals Ltd., succeeded in opposing the application to strike. The case will proceed to the class certification stage, where the substantive claims and issues will be further addressed.