Tribunal Can Order Auto Repair Data Access

Summary#

This bill changes the Competition Act to address “right to repair” for vehicles. It lets the Competition Tribunal (a federal court‑like body) order a vehicle maker to give an independent repair shop access to the same diagnostic information, software, tools, documentation, and service parts that authorized dealers get, but only if strict conditions are met. It also updates procedures so private parties can apply to the Tribunal with leave, and allows interim orders and consent agreements in these cases (amendments to s.103.1, s.104(1), s.106.1(1)).

• Independent shops can seek equal access to repair data and parts when a maker withholds access in a way that harms competition (new section after s.75, subs.(1)-(2)).
• Orders require “the same terms and the same manner” as for authorized providers (subs.(2)).
• Trade secrets do not have to be disclosed (subs.(4)).
• Private parties can apply to the Tribunal with leave and may get interim relief (s.103.1(1), s.104(1)).
• Applications must generally be filed within 1 year after the conduct stops (s.103.1(8)).

What it means for you#

• Households (vehicle owners)

  • If an order is issued for your vehicle make, more local shops could legally perform repairs that need proprietary tools or data, not just dealerships (subs.(2)).
  • Prices and wait times may change with more repair options; the bill does not set prices (Data unavailable).

• Independent repair providers

  • You can apply (with leave) or ask the Commissioner of Competition to apply to the Tribunal for an order if a maker withholds essential repair info or parts (s.103.1(1); subs.(1)).
  • To win an order, you must show all of the following: you are substantially affected or blocked from doing business; the maker withheld access to impede or prevent your entry; the info/parts are essential; and the refusal has had or is likely to have an adverse effect on competition (subs.(1)(a)-(d)).
  • If granted, the order gives you access to the same info, software, tools, documentation, and parts on the same terms as authorized providers (subs.(2)).
  • You may seek interim orders for timely relief while the case proceeds (s.104(1)).
  • You must apply no more than 1 year after the conduct stops (s.103.1(8)).

• Vehicle manufacturers

  • You may be ordered to provide access to diagnostic and repair information and to sell service parts to independent shops on parity terms with authorized providers when the legal test is met (subs.(2)).
  • You are not required to disclose trade secrets (subs.(4)).
  • Cases can be brought by the Commissioner or by private parties with leave; the Commissioner may intervene (s.103.1, s.103.2).

• Authorized dealers/repair providers

  • No new duties on you directly. However, independent shops may gain access that narrows differences in tools, data, and parts (subs.(2)).

• Local governments

  • No new duties identified in the bill text. Timing for implementation is not specified in the provided text (Data unavailable).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No direct appropriations, taxes, fines, or fees are created in the bill text.
• Administrative or enforcement costs for the Competition Bureau or Competition Tribunal are not stated (Data unavailable).
• Compliance costs for manufacturers and litigation costs for parties are not stated (Data unavailable).

Proponents' View#

• Enhances competition in repair markets by allowing orders when refusals harm competition, targeting conduct that blocks entry by independents (subs.(1)(b)-(d)).
• Ensures fair access by requiring the same terms and the same manner as for authorized providers, reducing discriminatory access to parts, software, and tools (subs.(2)).
• Focused and balanced: relief is case‑by‑case and only when information or parts are essential for diagnosis, service, maintenance, or repair (subs.(1)(c)).
• Protects intellectual property by excluding trade secrets from any disclosure order (subs.(4)).
• Improves access to justice: private parties can seek leave to bring applications, obtain interim orders, enter consent agreements, and have the Commissioner intervene (s.103.1(1), s.104(1), s.106.1(1), s.103.2).

Opponents' View#

• High proof burden: applicants must prove intent to impede competition, essentiality, and adverse market effects; this may be hard for small shops and could lead to lengthy litigation (subs.(1)(a)-(d)).
• Case‑by‑case orders create uncertainty; there is no general right of access without a Tribunal finding, which may slow practical benefits (subs.(2)).
• The trade secrets carve‑out may limit access to certain software or security‑related information, leading to disputes over what qualifies as a trade secret (subs.(4)).
• Expanding private applications could increase caseloads for the Tribunal and impose legal costs on manufacturers, with no timelines or resource provisions specified (s.103.1(1), s.104(1); Data unavailable).
• The bill sets no explicit safety or cybersecurity standards for tool and data use; some may view this as a gap that requires separate regulation or safeguards (No explicit provisions in the bill text).