New (2012) advertising, competition/antitrust, cartel, trade and class action law books from Oxford University Press:
The Class Action Playbook – Brian Anderson and Andrew Trask
From OUP:
“The Class Action Playbook is a unique and strategic “how to” guide for practitioners seeking to bring or defend a class action. Every important issue is addressed, including the initial shape of the proposed action, choice of forum, case-management schedules, pre-certification discovery and motions activity, briefing and argument of the class-certification motion, class notice, preparation for trial, class settlements, and the binding effects of class action judgments.
Experienced practitioners Brian Anderson and Andrew Trask analyze what decisions the plaintiff and defendant must make at each stage of a proposed class action, and the considerations that might drive different strategies at each stage. The authors explain the importance of every issue, the choices available to each side, and the factors each side should consider in choosing the best path to follow.
This Second Edition covers six relevant cases from the historic 2010 and 2011 Supreme Court terms; official commentary on class actions with citations to the new American Law Institute’s statement of the Principles of Aggregated Litigation, and where it upholds plaintiffs’ or defendants’ arguments; a discussion on emerging class action litigation tactics, including the use of arbitration clauses and the use of motions to strike class allegations; new appellate-court trends in class-action law, including developments in adequacy of representation, superiority, and use of experts at class certification.”
For more see: OUP: Class Action Playbook
A few days ago we posted a short note describing the Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. (Canada) Branch (“RBS”) obtaining a stay in Ontario Superior Court to produce documents under section 11 orders obtained by the federal Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) (see: RBS Wins Stay in LIBOR-TIBOR Price-fixing Case).
Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) will be holding an introductory session to the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards in Toronto on March 27, 2012 entitled Introduction to the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards & Consumer Complaints Procedure.
The Competition Bureau announced earlier today 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: Competition Bureau Secures Over $9 Million and Money Back to Victims for Business Scam).
On March 1, 2012, the omnibus crime bill currently making its way through the House and Senate (Bill C-10) passed third reading and was adopted by the Senate with 6 amendments (adopting a February 28, 2012 Senate Committee Report – see: Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs – Ninth Report).
Bill C-10, if it comes into force, will amend the current section 742.1 of the Criminal Code to provide that where a person is convicted of an offence and the court imposes a sentence of less than two years, the court may impose a conditional sentence (i.e., that the sentence be served in the community), except in certain circumstances.
On February 29, 2012, Industry Canada announced that the threshold for review for WTO investors or vendors, other than Canadians, is now C $330 million for 2012 (increased from C $312 million in 2011).
The new threshold was published in the Canada Gazette Part I on February 25, 2012 (see: Canada Gazette).
The monetary threshold for review under the Investment Canada Act (the “ICA”) for WTO investors is both higher than the general thresholds under the ICA, which are $5 million and $50 million for direct and indirect transactions respectively, and increased annually based on GDP growth.
As our new competition law handbook for associations is now out, The Competition Law Guide for Trade Associations in Canada, we thought we would post a few of the more interesting competition/antitrust association cases from 1905 to 2012.
Our small tiptoe through the history of associations and competition law will include cases involving ambulance operators, banks, building contractors, business forms suppliers, coal dealers, corrugated box manufacturers, corrugated metal pipe manufacturers, electrical contractors, fruit growers, gypsum dealers and manufacturers, insurance salespersons, lawyers, mandarin orange importers, notaries, pharmacists, paper mills, plumbing contractors and suppliers, real estate agents, softwood lumber dealers, surveyors and wholesale grocers, among others.
We’ll wrap up with the ongoing TREB case, the CREA case (settled in the fall of 2010) and a few of the more interesting recent international association cases over the past decade. The following are a couple more golden oldies from the “trusts” era:
____________________
The King v. Clarke (1907)
In The King v. Clarke, the president of the Alberta Retail Lumber Dealers’ Association was accused of conspiracy under section 498 of the Criminal Code. This case involved an agreement among the members of the association to fix the price of lumber in various parts of Alberta, including penalties for non-compliance and pressure on lumber manufacturers to refuse to supply to non-members. The association’s by-laws expressly provided for association price lists, the regulation of price in different geographic regions and penalties for non-compliance by members. The accused was convicted at trial, which was affirmed on appeal.
R. v. McMichael (1907)
In R. v. McMichael, the manager of the Dominion Radiator Company was accused of conspiracy under section 520 of the Criminal Code. This case involved agreements between the Master Plumbers Association and the Central Supply Association, including the Dominion Radiator Company, whereby plumber members would buy all of their goods from suppliers that agreed to only supply to the general public and non-member plumbers at higher prices. The accused was found guilty and ordered to pay a fine and serve three months in prison.
CANADIAN CONTEST RULES/PRECEDENTS
Do you need contest rules and forms for a Canadian contest/sweepstakes?
We offer a selection of Canadian contest rules and forms for random draw, skill and other common types of Canadian contests (i.e., contest precedents and forms).
For more information see Canadian Contest Forms/Precedents.
********************
On February 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada awarded compensatory and punitive damages to a contest entrant for misleading claims in a contest mail-out (see: Jean-Marc Richard v. Time Inc. and Time Consumer Marketing Inc.).
The decision is interesting not only that a contest case made it to the Supreme Court, but that our highest court also allowed punitive damages. The Supreme Court also had interesting comments in this Quebec Consumer Protection Act case regarding the importance of the “general impression” test for evaluating advertising (the “general impression” is also relevant for evaluating whether advertising is false or misleading under the federal Competition Act).
In this case, the plaintiff received an “Official Sweepstakes Notification” that suggested he won USD $833,337. The prize notification letter included conditional clauses which began “If you have and return the Grand Prize winning entry in time” and information that the recipient would qualify for a $100,000 bonus prize if the entry was validated within five days. The mailing also included the official rules in small print and an offer to subscribe to Time magazine. The rules provided that a winning number had been pre-selected by computer and that the holder of the number could receive the grand prize only if the reply coupon was returned by the deadline (otherwise the prize winner would be selected by random draw from all eligible entries with odds of winning of about 1 in 120 million).
The plaintiff returned the coupon and subscribed to Time. Though he began receiving his magazines, no cheque arrived. Contacting Time, he was told that he would not be receiving a cheque, his document had not contained the winning entry for the draw and was merely an invitation to participate in the sweepstakes.
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
