Archive for the 'Competition Law' Category
On March 28, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division issued its 2012 annual newsletter, which includes summaries of the DoJ’s Civil and Criminal Programs, International Program and competition advocacy and policy efforts in 2011.
Some interesting merger-related highlights of the DoJ’s newsletter include its report that premerger notifications in the U.S. under the HSR Act were up over 24% in 2011 (1,450 notifications in FY 2011 compared to 1,166 in 2010) and that it filed16 enforcement actions since April 1, 2011 (an increase from 6 in the previous year). The DoJ discusses the following transactions, among others: AT&T Inc. / T-Mobile USA Inc., H&R Block Inc. / TaxACT, NASDAQ QMX and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. / NYSE Euronext, VeriFone Systems Inc. / Hypercom Corp. and three high profile patent-related transactions: Google Inc.’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc., the acquisitions by Apple Inc., Microsoft and RIM of Nortel Networks patents and the acquisition by Apple of Novell Inc. patents.
In a curious story that caught my eye today, CTV reported that the City of Ottawa is threatening to terminate its contracts with companies found to have conspired to fix the price of gas in Ottawa and ban all future City purchases from them.
According to CTV, City of Ottawa Councilors Stephen Blais and Steve Desroches sent a letter to Canadian Tire, Mr. Gas and Pioneer in Ottawa, all of which pleaded guilty in Ontario Superior Court last week to fixing the price of gas in 2007 and were fined $2 million (see: Competition Bureau Announces $2 Million Fines in Ontario Gas Price-fixing Case).
This case is the second major gasoline price-fixing investigation that the Bureau has disclosed in the past several years (the Bureau is currently concluding the largest criminal investigation in its history in relation to gasoline price-fixing in Quebec – see: Further Individual Pleads Guilty in Quebec Gasoline Price-fixing Cartel).
ABA International Antitrust Committee – March 2012 Newsletter
The International Antitrust Law Committee of the American Bar Association has published its March 2012 Newsletter, which includes articles on trends in antitrust enforcement in CEE countries, investigation of cartels in Russia, a note on Ecuador’s Antitrust Act and competition compliance in the EU.
ABA Section of Antitrust Law – Market Definition in Antitrust (March 2012)
The ABA Section of Antitrust Law has published Market Definition in Antitrust: Issues and Case Studies.
From the ABA:
“Market Definition in Antitrust: Issues and Case Studies provides a comprehensive analysis of the issues involved in defining markets in antitrust cases. Market definition is central to most antitrust cases, because determining the existence of market power typically requires the definition of a relevant market. This book will prove a valuable guide to antitrust practitioners and consulting economists who are dealing with market definition.
This book is a thorough and accessible single volume practical guide to the definition of relevant markets and to empirical techniques that have been used in a variety of industries. The first chapter provides an overview of the theoretical concept of a relevant market. The remaining chapters provide industry-specific illustrations of how markets are defined in different contexts. The economic and legal analysis of product market definition has advanced significantly past the simple tests that were put forth in the Supreme Court’s 1962 decision in Brown Shoe Co. v. United States. Similarly, the analysis of geographic markets has come to recognize the limitations of the tests that focus exclusively on shipment patterns.
Data limitations and institutional considerations mean that there is no cookie-cutter approach to market definition that can be applied in all contexts. This book describes modern methods of market definition and analyzes their application in actual cases.”
For more information see:
Anti-corruption: Anti-Corruption Regulation 2012 (including Canada) – GCR (March 2012)
From GCR:
“Getting the Deal Through is delighted to publish the fully revised and updated sixth edition of Anti-Corruption Regulation, a volume in our series of annual reports, which provide international analysis in key areas of law and policy for corporate counsel, cross-border legal practitioners and business people.
Following the format adopted throughout the series, the same key questions are answered by leading practitioners in each of the 54 jurisdictions featured. New jurisdictions this year include Argentina, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland and Turkey.”
For more information see:
Anti-Corruption Regulation 2012
Competition: Cartel Regulation 2012 (including Canada) – GCR (February 2012)
From GCR:
“Global Competition Review is delighted to publish the fully revised and updated twelfth edition of Cartel Regulation, a volume in the Getting the Deal Through series of annual special reports providing international analysis in key areas of law and policy for corporate counsel, cross-border legal practitioners and business people.
The globalisation of the world’s economy means that cartel investigations are increasingly likely to be faced simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions. In the format adopted throughout the series, the same key questions are answered by leading practitioners in 46 jurisdictions worldwide. New jurisdictions this year include Belgium, Ecuador, Hungary, Indonesia, Slovakia and Zambia.”
For more information see:
On March 22, 2012, the Competition Bureau issued revised draft Abuse of Dominance Guidelines for public comment. The Bureau had previously issued updated draft Abuse Guidelines in January, 2009 (the Bureau’s Abuse of Dominance Guidelines have not been updated since 2001).
Generally speaking, under section 79 of the federal Competition Act, abuse of dominance occurs when a dominant firm (or firms) engages in a practice of anti-competitive acts that results in a prevention or substantial lessening of competition. Canada’s modern abuse of dominance provisions were added to the Act following significant amendments in 1986.
Like other major jurisdictions, in Canada it is not dominance per se that is prohibited, but rather the abuse of a dominant position (Canada does not, unlike the United States, recognize attempted monopolization).
To establish abuse of dominance, the Commissioner of Competition must establish the following elements on an application to the federal Competition Tribunal:
1. A firm (or firms) is dominant in a relevant market (dominance);
2. The firm has engaged in a practice of anti-competitive acts; and
3. The firm’s conduct has resulted in (or is or is likely to result in) a prevention or substantial lessening of competition.
Some of the highlights of the Bureau’s revised draft Abuse Guidelines, which are markedly shorter and more concise that than its previous guidelines, include:
Affirming that market power alone (or high prices) is insufficient to warrant intervention under the abuse of dominance provisions of the Act.
Confirming existing Competition Tribunal jurisprudence in relation to the elements of abuse of dominance (market power, a practice of anti-competitive acts and prevention or substantial lessening of competition). The Bureau also emphasizes that market power is a necessary prerequisite to abuse of dominance inquiries.
Taking the position that, during abuse of dominance inquiries, the Bureau will “generally afford parties the opportunity to respond to [its] concerns regarding alleged contraventions of section 79 and propose an appropriate resolution to address them.”
Indicating a general preference by the Bureau for settlements by way of registered consent agreements (consistent generally with the Bureau’s departure in recent years away from more informal resolutions, such as undertakings).
Articulating the Bureau’s general use of the hypothetical monopolist test for product and geographic market definition.
Setting out more clearly and concisely than previous guidelines the Bureau’s approach to quantitative and qualitative factors for product and geographic market definition. This is one of the most appealing refinements in the Bureau’s new draft Abuse Guidelines.
Increasing the previous “bright line” share thresholds for single firm dominance, with the Bureau now taking the position that a market share of less than 35% will generally not prompt further examination (unchanged), that a market share between 35% and 50% may be examined by the Bureau (a stricter standard for complainants than in the previous guidelines, where a market share of 35% or more would have “generally [prompted] further examination”) and that a market share of 50% or more will generally prompt further examination (increased from the previous 35%).
The Canadian Law and Economics Association has announced a call for papers for its next Annual Meeting on September 28 and 29, 2012. The deadline for submission of papers is July 1, 2012.
From the Canadian Law and Economics Association:
“You are invited to submit a paper for presentation at the next Annual Meeting of the Canadian Law and Economics Association to be held on Friday and Saturday, September 28 and 29, at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto. Professor Richard A. Epstein, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, will deliver the Jim Tory Law and Economics Public Lecture on, “Rate Regulation and Network Industries,” as well a keynote address at dinner on the same topic. As in past years, we are soliciting papers in all areas of law and economics.”
On March 22, 2012, the Competition Bureau announced that as part of its March Fraud Prevention Month efforts, it was joining forces with Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) to “warn potential immigrants to be wary of websites claiming to be, or to be affiliated with, official Government of Canada websites.”
In making the announcement, the Bureau said:
“These websites, which sometimes use the Canada wordmark or CIC logo without permission to target individuals wishing to live in Canada, purport to offer special immigration deals or guaranteed high-paying jobs for a fee. Unfortunately, these claims are fraudulent and the victim loses his or her money with no tangible results.
The only people who may charge a fee to represent or advise people in connection with a Canadian immigration proceeding or application are authorized immigration consultants, lawyers, Quebec notaries, and paralegals regulated by a law society. Under Canada’s immigration programs, all people are treated equally, whether they hire someone to represent them or not.”
As part of this new joint effort, the Bureau and CIC are offering tips to potential new citizens to avoid falling victim to fraud – see: here.
The National Competition Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association has announced a call for submissions for its annual James H. Bocking Memorial Award.
From the CBA:
“The CBA National Competition Law Section James H. Bocking Award was established by the National Competition Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association to honour annually the best scholarly paper submitted to the Section on a subject relating directly to Canadian competition law or policy.”
On March 21, 2012, the Competition Bureau announced that it had launched a new publication entitled: The Little Black Book of Scams.
In making the announcement, as part of its March Fraud Prevention Month efforts, the Bureau said:
“As part of Fraud Prevention Month, the Competition Bureau is launching The Little Black Book of Scams, a compact and easy to use reference guide filled with information Canadians can use to protect themselves against a variety of common scams.
While Fraud Prevention Month is nearing its end, consumers and businesses can consult The Little Black Book of Scams year-round to avoid falling victim to Internet scams, fake lotteries, romance scams, and many other schemes used to defraud Canadians of their money or personal information.
The booklet offers information on how these scams work, how to recognize them, as well as practical tips on how consumers can protect themselves. It also debunks common myths about scams, provides contact information for reporting a scam to the correct authority, and offers a step-by-step guide for scam victims to reduce their losses and avoid becoming repeat victims.”
Earlier this month, on March 5, 2012, the CRTC finalized its Regulations under Canada’s pending federal anti-spam legislation (the “Anti-spam Act”).
The last steps before Canada’s Anti-spam Act comes into force are now the finalization of the draft Industry Canada Regulations under the legislation and proclamation into force.
Once in force, the Anti-spam Act will create an opt-in regime for the sending of “commercial electronic messages” or “CEMs” and one of the strictest anti-spam regimes in the world, with maximum penalties of $1 million (for individuals) and $10 million (for corporations).
Some of the changes that were made to the previously draft CRTC Regulations include broadening the way consent to send CEMs may be obtained (orally or writing now, as opposed to only in writing in the draft Regulations) and somewhat broadening the ways in which a recipient may unsubscribe (now an unsubscribe mechanism must be able to be “readily performed” as compared to draft Regulations which specified the number of clicks required to unsubscribe).
On March 20, 2012 the Competition Bureau announced that Canadian Tire Corporation, Pioneer Energy LP and Mr. Gas pleaded guilty in Ontario Superior Court in Brockville, Ontario to fixing the price of gasoline in 2007 at the pump and were fined $2 million.
In making the announcement, the Bureau said:
“’Consumers in Kingston and Brockville were denied a competitive price for gasoline as a result of this criminal price-fixing cartel,’ said Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition. ‘The Bureau will not hesitate to take action when it uncovers evidence of illegal price-fixing.’
The pleas are as follows: Pioneer Energy LP pleaded guilty to price-fixing in Kingston and Brockville, and was fined $985,000; Canadian Tire Corporation pleaded guilty to price-fixing in Kingston and Brockville, and was fined $900,000; and Mr. Gas pleaded guilty to price-fixing in Brockville and was fined $150,000.
Today’s criminal charges and guilty pleas are the result of an extensive Bureau investigation that found evidence that gas retailers or their representatives in these local markets phoned each other and agreed on the price they would charge customers for gasoline. The Bureau’s investigation into potential price-fixing in the retail gasoline market continues in the Southeastern Ontario market.”
Under section 45 of the Competition Act, three types of agreements between competitors are “per se” illegal (i.e., with no adverse competitive impacts required to be shown):
1. Price-fixing agreements. Agreements to fix, maintain, increase or control the price for the supply of a product.
2. Market allocation/division agreements. Agreements to allocate sales, territories, customers or markets for the production or supply of a product.
3. Output/supply restriction agreements. Agreements to fix, maintain, control, prevent, lessen or eliminate the production or supply of a product (which may include group boycotts).
UBS disclosed earlier today in its 2011 Annual Report that the Competition Bureau has granted it conditional immunity in relation to the ongoing global LIBOR price-fixing investigation:
“The Canadian Competition Bureau has granted UBS conditional immunity in connection with potential competition law violations related to submissions for Yen LIBOR. As a result of these conditional grants, we will not be subject to prosecutions, fines or other sanctions for antitrust or competition law violations in the jurisdictions where we have conditional immunity or leniency in connection with the matters we reported to those authorities, subject to our continuing cooperation. However, the conditional leniency and conditional immunity grants we have received do not bar government agencies from asserting other claims against us. In addition, as a result of the conditional leniency agreement with the DOJ, we are eligible for a limit on liability to actual rather than treble damages were damages to be awarded in any civil antitrust action under US law based on conduct covered by the agreement and for relief from potential joint-and-several liability in connection with such civil antitrust action, subject to our satisfying the DOJ and the court presiding over the civil litigation of our cooperation. The conditional leniency and conditional immunity grants do not otherwise affect the ability of private parties to assert civil claims against us.”
In Canada, the Competition Bureau has established formal Immunity and Leniency programs, under which companies or individuals that may have been involved in cartel (e.g, price-fixing) or other criminal conduct under the Competition Act may, if all conditions are satisfied, receive full immunity from prosecution or reductions in fines for cooperating with a Bureau investigation.
Earlier today, the Wall Street Journal and others reported that the Quebec Securities Commission said that it intends to approve the proposed acquisition of the TMX by the Maple Group (see: Quebec Regulator Gives Nod to Maple/TMX Deal).
The Competition Bureau, however, was reported by the Montreal Gazette and others today to have repeated its concerns about the proposed transaction:
“A spokeswoman for the federal antitrust watchdog said there were no new developments to report regarding its continuing review of the proposed deal.
‘As we said in November, while it is accurate to say the commissioner’s views may be affected by further factual information and developments, a significant and material change to the competitive consequences to the proposed transaction would be required to sufficiently address the commissioner’s serious concerns communicated to the parties in November,’ spokesperson Alexa Keating said.”
The Victoria Real Estate Board will be holding a competition law course for its members – “Competition Law and REALTORS®: What You Say and Do Matters” - on Monday March 19th.
About this course:
“Competition Law and REALTORS®: What You Say and Do Matters was designed by ACRE with the assistance of CREA to help Canadian REALTORS® understand and comply with Canadian competition law. While Canadian competition law applies to all real estate professionals, this course was designed specifically for REALTORS®. This course provides an overview in plain language of Canadian competition law and practical compliance guidelines to assist REALTORS® in complying with Canadian competition law and a number of illustrative case studies. This national competition law course is available to members of Canadian real estate boards and associations.”
This course will be instructed by Steve Szentesi.
On increasing speculation about potential bidders for Viterra, the company issued a short press release earlier today. In its release, Viterra said:
“Viterra Inc. … at the request of Market Surveillance on behalf of the Toronto Stock Exchange, acknowledges that, in response to expressions of interest from third parties to acquire the Company, a process has been established by the Board of Directors of Viterra, which includes confidentiality agreements being entered into and the provision of due diligence.
Viterra is aware of press reports speculating about, among other things, the process, parties involved and third parties expressions of interest of at least Cdn$16 per Viterra common share. Viterra cautions investors not to rely on these press reports as there can be no assurance that a transaction will occur and that if one does occur, there can be no assurance at what price it will be completed.
Viterra has engaged financial and legal advisors to provide support with this process.
A further announcement will be made if appropriate.”
Given the recent announcements that the LIBOR price-fixing investigation had expanded to Canada (see: Cartel Update: Competition Bureau Investigates Alleged Interbank Lending Rate Coordination), I thought that I would post some information about this rather interesting recent paper by Rosa M. Abrantes-Metz and Albert D. Metz discussing the use of screens in distinguishing explicit from tacit collusion in price-fixing cases. (“Screens” are statistical tests designed to identify whether collusion or manipulation exists in a market and which companies/individuals may be involved.)
This paper has been published by our friends at Competition Policy International (CPI) in their March edition of CPI Antitrust Chronicle (see: Competition Policy International).
Jeff Gray and Tara Perkins at the Globe have written an interesting note on criticism of the Competition Bureau’s recently launched merger registry (see: Competition Bureau’s Mergers List Panned).
For the first transactions disclosed by the Bureau in its new merger registry see: Monthly Report of Concluded Merger Reviews. For more about Canadian merger control see: Merger Control. For the Canadian Bar Association’s comments on the proposed registry last fall see: Proposed Merger Registry.
The International Antitrust Law Committee of the ABA has published their March 2012 “Hot Topics” Newsletter entitled “Updates to the Canadian Merger Review Process” (see: Updates to the Canadian Merger Review Process).
Abstract:
“On January 11, 2012, the Canadian Competition Bureau published a revision of its Merger Review Process Guidelines. The revised Guidelines set out the Bureau’s approach to the merger review process under the Competition Act, which was most recently articulated in 2009 following the significant changes to the merger notification provisions which conform more closely to the ‘second request’ system employed in the United States.
The revised Guidelines represent refinements rather than wholesale changes to the process articulated in 2009, and are principally concerned with the procedures to be followed when responding to a Supplementary Information Request (‘SIR’)”
Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, the Globe and Mail and others are reporting that Glencore International Plc has made a £3.5 billion ($5.5 billion) bid for Viterra Inc., Canada’s largest grain handler (see e.g.: Glencore in $5.49 Billion Bid for Viterra Telegraph Says).
In reporting this story, Bloomberg said:
“Buying Viterra would give Glencore the largest share of the Canadian grain-handling market just as the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly over wheat and barley grown in the west of the country comes to an end. Viterra’s share of Canadian grain- handling may rise to almost 50 percent in the next few years from 45 percent, its Chief Executive Officer Mayo Schmidt said in an interview on March 8.
Viterra said in January it expects to increase grain volumes and earnings after the board’s control of supplies ends. The Canadian government passed a law in December that will end the monopoly and give farmers the choice to sell to other buyers as of Aug. 1.
A deal with Glencore might also help the company’s agricultural business to return to profit after a “difficult year” said Fairfax’s Meyer. Moving into storage of wheat and other logistics beyond just trading grains would likely help boost their margins, he said.
Glencore said Feb. 7 that 2011 adjusted earnings before interest and tax from its agricultural trading unit swung to an $8 million loss from a $659 million profit a year earlier after experiencing an ‘unprecedented cotton market.’”
For more media reports see: WSJ – Glencore, Cargill Looking at Viterra, The Australian – Cargill joins Glencore in circling Viterra, sale process expected, Globe and Mail – Glencore reportedly Viterra suitor
On March 6, 2012, a Scheduling Order was issued in Commissioner of Competition v. Air Canada/United, one of two current contested merger cases before the Competition Tribunal.
Hearings are scheduled to begin November 13, 2012.
A few days ago, we posted a short note on the Competition Bureau’s announcement that five companies and three individuals were found by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to have violated the Competition Act in relation to a deceptive marketing operation (see: Advertising Update: $9 Million Penalty and Restitution Obtained in Deceptive Marketing Scheme).
We thought we would post a few more observations about this rather significant case following the issuance of the decision by the Ontario Superior Court.
Facts
The Competition Bureau sought orders for restitution and administrative monetary penalties or “AMPs” (essentially civil fines) in relation to alleged deceptive marketing by a group of related companies that included Yellow Page Marketing B.V., Yellow Publishing Ltd., Yellow Data Services Ltd., Yellow Business Marketing Ltd. and several individual defendants (none related to the Yellow Pages Group (“YPG”), well known and reputable in Canada).
The Bureau alleged that this group of companies misled thousands of Canadian businesses, individuals and organizations to pay more than $2,000 each for “agreed upon” services on the assumption that the target companies were merely updating existing records to obtain free Google advertising. In fact, fine print disclaimers disclosed that the targets were actually signing new two-year contracts.
While unrelated to the YPG, the defendants registered 13 Internet domains for websites that included highly similar trade-marks, colours and designs used by the YPG. The defendants also sent faxes to businesses, individuals and organizations that, according to the Court, were “designed to mislead existing or potential YPG customers” into paying $2,856 to them and which included designs that highly resembled the YPG “Walking Fingers” logo.
Companies responding to the faxes received invoices, which, if not paid, were followed by more invoices, reminder notices or letters.
Law
The Court considered the facts of this case under section 74.01 of the Competition Act (the general civil misleading advertising section of the Act).
Generally speaking, the misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act prohibit false or misleading statements to the public that are made to promote products (including services) or business interests and that are materially false or misleading (i.e., likely to cause an ordinary or average consumer into purchasing a product or otherwise altering their conduct).
The Court reviewed the relevant law under the general misleading advertising provisions of the Act, including the test for materiality, the “general impression test” (the general impression of a claim is relevant under both the criminal and civil misleading advertising provisions in addition to its literal meaning), the fact that the general misleading advertising provisions apply to claims relating to both products or “any business interest” and the law relating to fine print disclaimers.
With respect to materiality, the Court held:
“The false or misleading representations made by the respondents were material. They were intended to deceive and did, in fact, deceive many Canadian businesses and individuals into believing that they were dealing with YPG, when they signed and returned the Unsolicited Faxes and sent payment to the respondents. Materiality of the false or misleading representations is further evidenced by the fact that a majority of complainants stated that they would never have ordered the service by returning the Unsolicited Faxes had they known that the respondents were unaffiliated with YPG and/or would never have paid the respondents invoices or reminder notices had they not believed that they had been sent by YPG.”
With respect to the fine print disclaimers, the Court held:
“The fact that the fine print of the Unsolicited Faxes stated that returning them would bind the recipient to a two year contract does not reduce its false or misleading nature. The fine print did not clarify that the Unsolicited Faxes had not been sent by YPG and the disclosure was insufficiently prominent.”
With respect to the meaning of “business interest” in section 74.01, the Court construed this phrase broadly holding:
“Similar misrepresentations appear in the respondents’ domain names, invoices, reminder notices and letters sent by the respondents. Although the respondents argue that collection efforts after the contract had been completed were not to increase sales, the relevant provision of the Competition Act refers to promoting “any business interest” and not just sales. The phrase ‘business interest’ must be given a wide meaning and collecting money, and threats made in relation to collection efforts, constitute promotion of the respondents’ business interests.”
The Court also found the defendants’ domain names, invoices, reminder notices and letters to be misleading and rejected the defendants’ argument that a due diligence was available.
Under the penalty provisions of the civil misleading advertising sections, a limited defense is available to the corrective notice, administrative monetary penalty and restitution provisions where a person establishes that they exercised due diligence to prevent the reviewable conduct from occurring.
On March 8, 2012, the Competition Bureau announced that another individual pleaded guilty under section 45 of the Competition Act to fixing the price of gasoline in the ongoing Quebec gasoline price-fixing cartel (see: Individual Fined in Gasoline Price-fixing Cartel).
This investigation is the largest criminal investigation in the Bureau’s history and has been active for about two years.
In making the announcement, the Bureau said:
“The accused, Robert Murphy (now retired), was a territorial manager employed by Sonic. He was sentenced today to pay a fine of $7,500.
Charges were laid in June 2008 and July 2010 against 38 individuals and 14 companies accused of fixing the price of gas at pumps in Victoriaville, Thetford Mines, Magog and Sherbrooke, Quebec. As of today, 22 individuals and six companies have pleaded guilty in this case, with fines totalling over $2.8 million. Of the 22 individuals who have pleaded guilty, six have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling 54 months.”
March is Fraud Prevention Month. On March 5, 2012, Consumer Protection BC published an anti-fraud backgrounder on their blog including information about typical fraudsters, steps for consumers to take where they think they have been a target of fraud and fraud-related case studies from past Consumer Protection BC investigations.
For more see: Consumer Protection BC – Fraud Prevention Month
The Competition Bureau announced earlier today that Alison Tait has been appointed the new Deputy Commissioner, Civil Matters Branch.
In making the announcement, the Bureau said:
“Ms. Tait has extensive experience in industrial policy, program development, and international business development, both in Canada and the United States, and is currently Director General of the Automotive and Transportation Industries Branch at Industry Canada. She has developed and implemented a number of initiatives aimed at ensuring the long-term competitiveness of the automotive sector in Canada.
She has previously served as Industry Canada’s Director responsible for Tourism, the 2010 Olympics, and Trade & Investment. Ms. Tait has also worked at the Canadian Consulate General in Boston as an Investment Counsellor, where she was responsible for attracting foreign direct investment and venture capital to Canada.”
The Competition Bureau is organized into a number of civil and criminal related “branches” consisting of: Civil Matters, Compliance and Operations, Criminal Matters, Economic Policy and Enforcement, Fair Business Practices, Legal Support, Legislative and International Affairs, Mergers and Public Affairs.
The Civil Matters Branch is responsible for administering and enforcing the civil provisions of the federal Competition Act, which include abuse of dominance (sections 78 and 79), refusal to deal (section 75), exclusive dealing / tied selling / market restriction (section 77) and price maintenance (section 76).
On March 2, 2012, a new tentative hearing date of October 17, 2012 was set in the Pro-Sys and Sun-Rype indirect purchaser price-fixing class action cases before the Supreme Court of Canada (see: Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. (docket) and Sun-Rype Products Ltd. (docket)).
In Pro-Sys, a majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal set aside an earlier Supreme Court of British Columbia decision granting certification and dismissed the action on the basis that the representative plaintiffs, as indirect purchasers, had no cause of action maintainable in law.
In Sun-Rype, the British Columbia Court of Appeal similarly set aside an earlier Supreme Court of British Columbia decision granting certification for indirect purchaser plaintiffs, holding that they had no cause of action and remitted the application to the trial court for consideration with respect to the direct purchaser plaintiffs.
OUR BOOKS
The Competition Law Guide for Trade Associations in Canada is a practical and concise summary of Canadian competition law for trade, professional and other associations and their advisors
OUR COURSES
Competition Law and REALTORS®: What You Say and Do Matters was designed by ACRE with the assistance of CREA to help Canadian REALTORS® understand and comply with Canadian competition law
For more see: ACRE