Archive for March, 2012
Earlier this month, on March 5, 2012, the CRTC finalized its Regulations under Canada’s pending federal anti-spam legislation (the “Anti-spam Act”).
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 high-profile contest case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada late last month (see: Supreme Court Awards Compensatory and Punitive Damages in Misleading Contest Case), this short note posted by Consumer Protection BC earlier today on sweepstakes scams caught my eye: Seniors Continue to be Victims of a Classic Scam.
Consumer Protection BC discusses, among other things, enforcement efforts in a recent BC deceptive sweepstakes case and tips to avoid becoming a victim of fraud.
Some of the suggestions made by Consumer Protection BC include not paying for prizes upfront, being suspicious of free gifts, not sending contest organizers personal information, shredding personal information before disposing and explaining scams to vulnerable family members.
On March 14, 2012, Industry Minister Christian Paradis announced that the federal government would ease foreign ownership restrictions on telecom companies in Canada and put in place caps on upcoming wireless spectrum auctions to allow smaller wireless companies increased access to the market.
In the Industry Canada news release, the Minister announced that the Telecommunications Act would be amended to lift foreign investment restrictions for telecom companies with less than a 10% market share and that the Government would be applying caps in the upcoming spectrum auctions to “guarantee that both new wireless competitors and incumbent carriers have access to the spectrum up for auction”.
The Government also introduced several other measures, including the improvement and extension of tower sharing and roaming policies and imposing obligations on 700 MHz spectrum licence holders for the timely delivery of advanced wireless services to rural Canadians.
The impetus for these changes, according to the Government, included the fact that the “Canadian wireless landscape had changed significantly” since the last auctioning of Advanced Wireless Services Spectrum in 2008. Some of the specific changes have included new wireless entrants (e.g., Wind Mobile and Mobilicity). In this regard, the Government said in its related Backgrounder:
“The Canadian wireless landscape has changed significantly since the 2008 auctioning of Advanced Wireless Services spectrum. At that time, the government set aside spectrum for new entrants and implemented other policies to support new competitors. New entrants have since made large investments to launch services and are providing greater choice to Canadian consumers. These new entrants currently serve over 1 million Canadians. At the same time, Canadian incumbent wireless providers continued to invest in their networks. Over 98 percent of Canadians now have access to high-speed wireless services. Average Canadian mobile wireless prices have fallen by more than 10 percent since 2008.”
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
