Archive for the 'Amendments' Category
On April 16, 2012, the Ministry of Justice announced that it was introducing new legislation that will, if passed, standardize the time limits for filing lawsuits in British Columbia.
In making the announcement the Ministry said:
“Bill 34, the proposed new Limitation Act covers breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, personal injury, defamation and other civil actions. It sets a single, two-year limitation period for most civil claims and reduces the maximum time limit for filing a claim to 15 years from the date the act in question occurred. The proposed reforms balance the rights of both plaintiffs and defendants, yet ensure important aspects of the current law remain unchanged.
These changes are the result of significant consultation with the public, consumer groups and business, legal and local government representatives, and they will make B.C.’s law consistent with reforms in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick.
Limitation periods can affect the justice system and its efficiency, the cost and availability of insurance products for all British Columbians, and how financial arrangements are structured. They can also determine how long individuals and businesses must keep records that might be required to support a legal action.”
The new legislative reforms introduced by the Government yesterday were first proposed in a 2010 white paper and based on public consultations.
Bill C-34, if passed, will involve a move away from a variety of basic limitation periods (currently based on the type of cause of action) to a single two-year limitation period for most civil claims, with exceptions for the enforcement of monetary judgments and statutes with specific limitation periods – for example, the Competition Act.
The new legislation would also mean that the maximum time limit for filing a claim would be reduced to 15 years from 30 years. Under the new legislation, the ultimate limitation period would also be suspended until a claim was discovered (if a defendant willfully concealed facts about an injury, loss, damage or that they were responsible for the act or omission or where a defendant willfully misled a plaintiff about whether civil proceedings would provide an appropriate remedy).
CANADIAN CASL (ANTI-SPAM LAW) PRECEDENTS
Do you need a precedent or checklist
to comply with CASL (Canadian anti-spam law)?
We offer Canadian anti-spam law (CASL) precedents and checklists to help electronic marketers comply with CASL. These include checklists and precedents for express consent requests (including on behalf of third parties), sender identification information, unsubscribe mechanisms, business related exemptions and types of implied consent and documenting consent and scrubbing distribution lists. We also offer a CASL corporate compliance program. For more information or to order, see: Anti-Spam (CASL) Precedents/Forms. If you would like to discuss CASL legal advice or for other advertising or marketing in Canada, including contests/sweepstakes, contact us: contact.
************
April 15, 2012
The Federal Office of the Privacy Commissioner has launched a new and enhanced website that includes new anti-spam legislation information relating to the role of the Privacy Commissioner (see: Online Privacy: Fighting Electronic Spam and Other Online Threats).
On April 12, 2012, the Competition Bureau published a new Merger Review Performance Report. The Bureau’s new Report contains a summary of updated and newly issued merger-related guidelines, statistics relating to its review of mergers in the past two years (since its last merger performance report was issued in 2010) and discussions of recent initiatives and policy changes.
Some of the highlights of the Bureau’s new Report include:
Merger-review related policy objectives. The Bureau describes its new and updated merger guidelines as part of its “ongoing initiative to realign its processes, and to develop and revise its guidance documents to ensure the successful implementation of the 2009 amendments to the merger provisions of the Act and the Notifiable Transactions Regulations.” The Bureau’s new or recently updated merger-related guidelines include its Fees and Service Standards Policy for Mergers and Merger-Related Matters, Fees and Service Standards Handbook for Mergers and Merger-Related Matters, Procedures Guide for Notifiable Transactions and Advance Ruling Certificates under the Competition Act, several new Merger Interpretation Guidelines (including in relation to hostile transactions), updated Merger Enforcement Guidelines (which govern the Bureau’s substantive review of mergers), Merger Review Process Guidelines (which address the Bureau’s approach to Canada’s new two-stage merger review regime, include second phase reviews and the use of supplementary information requests (“SIRs”)).
New standard language for “no action” letters. The Bureau discusses its new standard language for “no action” letters to align its clearance language to section 123(2) of the Competition Act and “more accurately reflect the distinction between the discretionary issuance of an ARC and [a no action letter]”.
New merger remedies bulletin. The Bureau has announced, consistent with recent public remarks by the Commissioner, that it intends to update its 2007 Merger Remedies Bulletin “in the coming months” based on its August, 2011 Merger Remedies Study.
Merger position statements. The Bureau discusses its recent initiative to begin issuing position statements for certain merger reviews to “enhance its communication and transparency with stakeholders”. The Bureau also discusses some of the factors it will consider in deciding whether to issue a position statement, including the complexity and importance of issues, involvement of novel analytical tools and level of interest in the case.
Merger registry. The Bureau discusses its recently launched (in February of this year) merger register.
Merger review statistics. The Bureau’s Report includes merger review statistics, including a significant drop in reviews (a decrease of about 100 reviewed mergers between FY2007-2008 and FY2008-2009, the “biggest decline in a single fiscal year since the introduction of filing fees in 1997), the impact of filings following the increase in the size of transaction threshold in 2009 (from C $50 to $70 million at the time – the size-of-transaction threshold is currently C $77 million), a “steady influx of highly complex transactions raising serious competition concerns” (including the BHP/Potash, LSE/TMX, TMX/Maple Group and Google/Motorola transactions) and the issuance of 18 SIRs since the introduction of Canada’s two-stage merger review regime in 2009.
Review of non-notifiable mergers. The Bureau discusses its relatively recent initiative to increase its monitoring and review of non-notifiable transactions (in Canada, all mergers as defined under the Competition Act are potentially reviewable regardless of whether they require pre-merger notification). In this regard, the Bureau states that it “recently implemented a new initiative to actively monitor transactions in the Canadian marketplace”. According to the Bureau, this shift in its policy was largely driven by the reduced timeframe to challenge mergers post-closing as a result of the 2009 amendments (reduced to one year from the previous three). The Bureau states that its monitoring of non-notifiable deals includes “regular scanning of various media sources and mergers and acquisition databases, as well as the review of relevant marketplace complaints received by the Bureau.”
The National Competition Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association is holding its 2012 Spring competition law conference in Toronto (the 2012 Competition Law Spring Forum: Best Practices in a Time of Active Enforcement) on May 2, 2012 at the Toronto Board of Trade.
From the CBA:
“Aided by the 2009/10 changes to the Competition Act, the Canadian Competition Bureau has adopted an aggressive enforcement agenda. There are more litigated cases in the Tribunal and the Courts than ever before, including the first prosecution under the new conspiracy provisions of the Act. Commissioner Melanie Aitken has made it clear that there are more to come. Our expert panelists will provide guidance on effectively protecting your clients’ interests at all stages – from preventative compliance programs to responding to criminal or civil enforcement actions. We are delighted to announce that Commissioner Melanie Aitken will be our keynote lunchtime speaker.”
This year’s Spring conference will include panels on compliance, responding to Competition Bureau investigations, misleading advertising, developments in merger review and recent competition law developments (including the TREB abuse case, the contested Air Canada / United merger, Bell Canada advertising case and recent bid-rigging cases).
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).
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.
The Globe and Mail posted a short interview with the Commissioner of Competition earlier today by Steve Ladurantaye.
Among the topics discussed by the Commissioner included misleading advertising, the perception that the Competition Bureau only pursues high profile deterrent setting cases, the Bureau’s approach to case selection and its approach to remedies.
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
