Archive for the 'Competition Law' Category
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.
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.
Oxford University Press has published their March edition of the Journal of Competition Law & Economics, which includes articles on patent hold-up (Richard Epstein), buyer alliances (Ariel Ezrachi), search engine competition (Cedric Argenton) and private antitrust enforcement (Reza Rajabiun).
For more see:
March is Fraud Prevention Month. On March 5, 2012, the Competition Bureau issued the following tips for consumers to protect themselves against fraud:
Be vigilant when evaluating ads, whether for a job, a product or service offered online, over the phone or in print.
Before sending money or giving credit card or account details, be sure you understand what you are agreeing to. Do not feel pressured into paying for a product or service because of threats that your credit rating will be damaged.
Know who you are dealing with. Be wary of any unsolicited phone calls, emails, text messages or letters from unknown sources.
Search for the company, the individuals, the product or the offer on the Internet, and verify any contact and company details.
Our friend and colleague Marius Adomnica (Gratl & Company) has written this good case note on the recent Tim Hortons class action case in Ontario:
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently released its reasons striking the Plaintiffs’ claim in Fairview Donut Inc. v. The TDL Group Corp., 2012 ONSC 1252, a widely reported Ontario class action arising out of a conflict over how the donuts in Tim Hortons stores are prepared.
Among the claims dismissed were claims the Plaintiffs had brought under the Competition Act.
While Tim Hortons donuts were traditionally baked from scratch in each individual store, in 2002 Tim Hortons partnered with an Irish company to establish a manufacturing plant that makes frozen, pre-cooked donuts and sells them to individual franchises, eliminating the need for the donuts to be baked from scratch at each store.
A number of dissatisfied franchise owners brought a lawsuit against Tim Hortons over this change, arguing essentially that the price they were required to pay for these donuts under their franchise agreements unfairly cut into their profits. Among other claims, the Plaintiffs argued that the company’ actions violated sections 61 (Price Maintenance) and 45 (Conspiracy) of the Competition Act.
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
