Archive for the 'News' Category
The Competition Bureau has updated its organizational chart with John Pecman (formerly head of the Criminal Matters Branch) as Acting Commissioner of Competition. From the Bureau:
“John Pecman is Acting Commissioner of Competition.
The Commissioner is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Competition Act and three labelling statutes, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Precious Metals Marking Act and the Textile Labelling Act.
Under the Competition Act, the Commissioner can launch inquiries, challenge civil and merger matters before the Competition Tribunal, make recommendations on criminal matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada (DPP), and intervene as a competition advocate before federal and provincial bodies.
As head of the Canadian Competition Bureau, the Commissioner leads the Bureau’s participation in international fora such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International Competition Network (ICN), to develop and promote coordinated competition laws and policies in an increasingly globalized marketplace.
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.
************
September 23, 2012
I’ve been seeing an increasing flutter of updates and newsletters recently discussing the status of Canada’s new (though still unclear when) anti-spam legislation (“CASL”). So I thought I would have a poke around the web, see what Industry Canada, the CRTC, the Competition Bureau and Privacy Commissioner’s office have been up to lately and post a few thoughts on the progress of the new law that is inching along, some recent developments and practical steps that can be taken before the law is in force.
Last week the Advertising Standards Canada released its fourth annual Compliance Report on the Canadian Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (see: Advertising Standards Canada releases 2011 Compliance Report on Canadian Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative).
The Initiative was launched by members of Canada’s food and beverage industry in 2007 in an effort to shift the landscape of advertising directed to children under 12 to the promotion of “better-for-you products”.
Under this Initiative, which includes advertising in all major media (as well as children focused media such as video, computer games and DVDs), participants have committed to either not direct advertising primarily to children under 12 or shift advertising to promote products that are “consistent with the principles of sound nutrition guidance.” The Initiative includes specific nutrition criteria (e.g., foods that reflect the dietary guidelines of Canada’s Food Guide or nutrient content claims of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising). Participants in this initiative have also agreed to certain other commitments, such as reducing the use of 3rd party licensed characters used to promote non-Initiative approved products, not advertising in elementary schools or paying for product placements in programs directed at children.
According to the ASC, some participants have stopped child-directed advertising altogether (the 19 food and beverage company participants include Burger King, Campbell’s, Coke, General Mills, Hershey, Kellogg, Kraft, Mars, McDonald’s, Nestle, Pepsi, Post, Unilever and Weston). Others have launched new “better-for-you” advertising initiatives. No product in the ASC’s Initiative is more than 200 calories and every meal is less than 600 calories.
The regulation and self-regulation of food and children’s advertising and labeling is governed in Canada by, among other things, the federal Competition Act, Food and Drugs Act and Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, as well as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising and the ASC’s Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children and Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (which contains specific rules relating to advertising for children).
For a copy of the ASC’s new report see: Canadian Children’s Food & Beverage Advertising Initiative.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services: Contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
On September 20, 2012, Canada’s intelligence agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), issued its 2010-2011 Public Report.
In light of the ongoing federal review of the CNOOC/Nexen transaction, heightened debate regarding the conditions for state-owned-enterprise (“SOE”) investment in Canada and fact that some Canadian investments can be subject to a national security review, the following discussions of the Investment Canada Act, SOEs and Canadian national security caught my eye:
“Some foreign investments in Canada can also pose wider national security concerns. The Investment Canada Act provides the Government of Canada with a mechanism to ensure that foreign investments are within Canada’s national security interests. CSIS plays a contributing role by advising government of the national security implications that might arise from a proposed foreign investment.
…
A related security issue is one of foreign investment. Canada is a trading nation, with economic wealth, advanced infrastructure and vast potential – all of which make Canada a natural and attractive prospect for foreign investors. While the vast majority of foreign investment in Canada is carried out in an open and transparent manner, certain state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private firms with close ties to their home governments have pursued opaque agendas or received clandestine intelligence support for their pursuits here.
When foreign companies with ties to foreign intelligence agencies or hostile governments seek to acquire control over strategic sectors of the Canadian economy, it can represent a threat to Canadian security interests. The foreign entities might well exploit that control in an effort to facilitate illegal transfers of technology or to engage in other espionage and other foreign interference activities. CSIS expects that national security concerns related to foreign investment in Canada will continue to materialize, owing to the increasingly prominent role that SOEs are playing in the economic strategies of some foreign governments.”
For a copy of CSIS’ report see: CSIS – Public Report 2010-2011.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services: Contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
On September 20, 2012, the Competition Bureau issued new final Abuse of Dominance Guidelines (see: Competition Bureau Issues Abuse of Dominance Guidelines).
The Bureau’s new Guidelines replace its former 2001 Guidelines and are the result of some fairly significant public consultations, including comments from the Canadian and U.S. competition/antitrust law bars and criticism for, among other things, providing significantly less guidance than in the past (see: here).
The Bureau’s new Abuse of Dominance Guidelines also replace a number of final and draft sector and conduct specific guidelines and bulletins (the Draft Enforcement Guidelines on Abuse of Dominance in the Airline Industry, The Abuse of Dominance Provisions as Applied to the Grocery Sector, Information Bulletin on the Abuse of Dominance Provisions as Applied to the Telecommunications Industry and Predatory Pricing Enforcement Guidelines).
Some of the aspects of the Bureau’s new Guidelines that caught my eye include:
Length. The most striking feature of the new Guidelines is their length – they are substantially shorter and provide significantly less analysis and examples compared to the former Guidelines. Gone as well is the prior appendix summarizing Canadian abuse of dominance cases to date, which had included summaries of the relevant facts, markets, anti-competitive acts and remedies ordered (or negotiated) in abuse of dominance cases since Canada’s modern abuse of dominance provisions were introduced in 1986.
Absence of bright-line safe harbours. The new Guidelines provide little comfort around market share thresholds for single or joint dominance. In this regard, the Bureau takes the position, with respect to single firm dominance, that a market share of less than 35% will generally not prompt further examination; a market share between 35% and 50% will generally only prompt further examination if it appears that a firm is likely to increase its market share through the alleged anti-competitive conduct within a reasonable time; and a market share of more than 50% will generally prompt further examination. With respect to joint dominance, the Bureau takes the position in the new Guidelines that a combined market share of 65% or more will generally prompt further examination. While the Bureau has raised the threshold over which it will generally more closely examine conduct (from 35% to 50%), the new final Guidelines do not adopt recommendations made during the comment period to adopt bright-line safe harbours below which it would not commence enforcement. In this regard, the Bureau has essentially preserved its position from its previous 2001 Guidelines that it could conclude that market power exists below 35% (though it is difficult to see the circumstances where this would be so).
Potential for investigation in the absence of dominance. Despite criticism from some during the comment period, the Bureau has retained language in the final Guidelines that it may investigate abuse of dominance allegations even where a firm does not “presently appear to have market power.” The Bureau also states: “While the Bureau will not commence an application under section 79 of the Act where a firm does not presently appear to have market power, the Bureau will generally investigate allegations of abuse of dominance if it appears a firm is likely to obtain market power through an alleged practice of anti-competitive acts within a reasonable period of time.” As has been pointed out by some commentators, it is not clear where the authority for this approach originates given that the first element under section 79 requires that one or more firms substantially or completely control a market (or markets) – i.e., the requirement is current, not prospective, market power. It would also seem that at least one possible obvious result could be smaller firms (with shares under 35%) facing a Bureau investigation where the Bureau’s view was that alleged anti-competitive acts could lead to market power within a “reasonable period of time”. This aspect of the final Guidelines would both seem to markedly expand the circumstances in which the Bureau may take enforcement action and also provide significantly less comfort to smaller firms that, while they may not yet possess anywhere near the market presence to be reasonably considered dominant, may be engaged in vigorous competitive behavior that generates complaints or Bureau attention.
The Competition Tribunal has issued its decision in the TREB abuse of dominance case responding to TREB’s attempt to have a Notice of Constitutional Question heard by the Tribunal.
In refusing to “entertain” TREB’s Notice, which TREB attempted to file with the Tribunal on August 24th (and which the Tribunal refused to accept for filing – see: here), the Tribunal held that the constitutional issues raised by TREB should not be heard on the basis that it contravened the Tribunal’s scheduling order (made on consent), there was no justification for the delay (and that TREB had failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for a breach of the order) and that a disruption of the hearing was likely.
TREB’s Notice challenged the constitutionality of the order sought by the Commissioner of Competition under Canadian competition law, including based on the regulated conduct defence (i.e., that the regulated conduct defence should apply because real estate brokers and agents in Ontario are subject to the provisions of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act).
The regulated conduct defence or “RCD”, which is now partially codified under section 45(7) of the Competition Act, is one of a number of defences and exceptions that, when met, can apply to provide immunity from the application of the Act. In particular, the RCD can apply where conduct that may otherwise be subject to the Competition Act is either mandated or authorized by validly enacted provincial or federal legislation (though does not provide immunity merely because an industry is regulated generally, or there is authorization for conduct that is not subject to challenge under the Act).
For a copy of the Tribunal’s decision see: Commissioner of Competition v. Toronto Real Estate Board.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services: Contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
Our friends at the Canadian Council on International Law (CCIL) have announced that four new Humphrey Fellowships are available for 2013 in international human rights law or international organization. From the CCIL:
“The Canadian Council on International Law awards annually up to four John Peters Humphrey Student Fellowships in International Human Rights Law or International Organization. The Fellowships are awarded to outstanding students in order to permit them to pursue full-time graduate studies at leading graduate institutions in Canada or worldwide. Students in Canadian law and political science (or the equivalent) faculties are eligible to apply for the Fellowship. Each Fellowship will fund the recipient up to CDN$35,000 – up to a maximum of CDN$25,000 for tuition and fees, plus a stipend of CDN$10,000 for living expenses. Fellowship holders will be eligible to apply for the Fellowship in open competition for a second term. Each year, the competition opens September 15 and closes November 15.”
For more information and application process see: Humphrey Fellowships
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services: Contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
In an interesting speech on September 14, 2012 by the Acting Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. DoJ’s Antitrust Division, Joseph Wayland discussed the continuing cooperation between U.S. and international enforcement agencies (including Canada), including in relation to the auto parts, air cargo, LCD and e-book cartel investigations and Google/Motorola and UT/Goodrich mergers.
In his speech, he emphasized three key drivers for international cooperation between agencies: increased understanding of the competitive process, increased efficiency for global enforcement and facilitating pro-consumer economic activity. The speech also discusses the increase of leniency programs globally and some of the strategic rationales for inter-agency cooperation.
For a copy of the speech see: International Cooperation at the Antitrust Division.
____________________
For more information about our regulatory law services: Contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
