Decision Summaries CT-2007-006

Case name: The Commissioner of Competition v. Premier Career Management Group Corp. and Minto Roy
Case #: CT-2007-006
Date rendered: 2008-07-15
Presiding judicial member: Madam Justice Simpson

This Decision Summary is also available in 'PDF' format :  

INFORMATION NOTE*

The Commissioner of Competition v. Premier Career Management Group Corp. and Minto Roy

July 15, 2008. The Competition Tribunal issued its reasons and order dismissing the Commissioner of Competition's application pursuant to paragraph 74.01(1)(a) and section 74.1 of the Competition Act against Premier Career Management Group Corp. and Minto Roy.

The Commissioner alleged that the Respondents engaged in reviewable conduct by making false or misleading representations to the public about the career management services they offered. The Commissioner asserted that the Respondents advised prospective clients that (1) they would almost certainly find work with their help, typically within 90 days, and at a position with a salary equal to or better than their previous position; (2) the Respondents screen prospective clients and accept only those whom they consider to be highly qualified; and (3) the Respondents have an extensive network of personal contacts or links with senior level executives of companies that have job openings and that they will use the network to provide contacts and/or arrange job interviews. The representations at issue were allegedly made orally by Minto Roy and employees of PCMG during private meetings with prospective clients.

The Respondents denied making the alleged representations and submitted that a private meeting in an office does not qualify as a representation "to the public" as required by paragraph 74.01(1)(a) of the Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the Respondents made the alleged representations, that the representations were misleading and that the contacts representation and the good job within 90 days representation were material because these representations would motivate an average person looking for employment to engage in the services of PCMG.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner had not met the onus of establishing that the misrepresentations were made "to the public" for the following reasons:

  • "to the public" means to the marketplace: Based on the legislative history of section 74.01 "to the public" means to the marketplace.
  • Personal matters were discussed: Personal matters including prospective clients' employment histories, their expectations and their ability to pay PCMG's fees were discussed during the meetings.
  • There was an expectation of privacy: Both the prospective clients and the PCMG employees intended their discussions to be private. This mutual expectation of privacy was evidenced by the fact that the meetings took place behind closed doors.
  • There was no public access: Meetings were not accessible to the public. No one could pay a fee to receive, subscribe to overhear or in any way listen in on the conversations between prospective clients and PCMG employees. Without accessibility, it cannot be said that misinformation was "fed into the marketplace".
  • The deeming provision (paragraph 74.03(1)(d) of the Act) did not apply on the facts of this case: The Tribunal found that in representations falling within the ambit of paragraph 74.03(1)(d) (representations made in the course of in-store, door-to-door or telephone selling), one person could constitute the public for the purpose of 74.01(1)(a). However, the deeming provision did not apply on the facts of the case.

The issue of costs was reserved.


* This is an unofficial summary prepared by the Registry of the Tribunal.