<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Litigator - Affleck Greene McMurtry, LLP &#187; Michael Osborne</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/author/mosborne/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law and Commercial Litigation Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 13:41:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>More gas price fixing guilty pleas</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/more-gas-price-fixing-guilty-pleas/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/more-gas-price-fixing-guilty-pleas/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:49:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gasoline price fixing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1329</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two gasoline retailers and five individuals have pleaded guilty to fixing the price of gasoline in Belleville, Ontario, and Victoriaville, Quebec, the Competition Bureau announced today. Suncor Energy Products Inc. (Sunoco) pleaded guilty to fixing the price of gas in Belleville, Ontario, from May to November 2007, and was sentenced to a fine of $500,000. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/more-gas-price-fixing-guilty-pleas/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Insurance Bureau must supply data pending hearing</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/insurance-bureau-must-supply-data-pending-hearing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/insurance-bureau-must-supply-data-pending-hearing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1301</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Insurance Bureau of Canada must continue to supply the Used Car Dealers Association of Ontario with claims data pending the hearing of UCDA&#39;s application for a permanent order that IBC continue to supply this data, the Competition Tribunal ruled on March 16. UCDA is a trade association representing 4,500 Ontario car dealers. Its Auto [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/insurance-bureau-must-supply-data-pending-hearing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gas retailers fined $2 million for price fixing</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/gas-retailers-fined-2-million-for-price-fixing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/gas-retailers-fined-2-million-for-price-fixing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:18:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1295</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Canadian Tire Corporation, Mr. Gas, and Pioneer&#160;Energy&#160;LP pleaded guilty to fixing the retail price of gasoline in Kingston and Brockville from May to November&#160;2007. They were fined a total of $2 million. See the Competition Bureau press release.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/gas-retailers-fined-2-million-for-price-fixing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/competition-law-review-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/competition-law-review-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:54:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1259</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Review of major Canadian Competition Law developments over the past year, including: Criminal, Reviewable Matters, Mergers, Marketing Practices, Private Enforcement, The Long Arm of US Antitrust, Across the Pond

<b>Top Stories</b>
<ul><li>Can indirect purchasers sue for price-fixing losses?</li>
<li>Bureau reverses the charges on hidden fees</li>
<li>Court throws the book at Yellow Page business directory scam</li>
</ul>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/competition-law-review-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Democracy and the rule of law</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/democracy-and-the-rule-of-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/democracy-and-the-rule-of-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:36:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1275</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Democracy and the rule of law are cornerstones of the Canadian constitution. These concepts have been appealed to by both sides in the dispute over the Harper government&#8217;s plan to end the Canadian Wheat Board&#8217;s monopoly, and have resulted in two conflicting court decisions. In December, a Federal Court judge said that the government&#8217;s plan [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/democracy-and-the-rule-of-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court throws the book at &#8220;Yellow Page&#8221; business directory scam</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/court-throws-the-book-at-yellow-page-business-directory-scam/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/court-throws-the-book-at-yellow-page-business-directory-scam/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:31:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AMP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Australia Competition and Consumer Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business directory scam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Trade Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Restitution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Four closely related companies operating a business directory scam were ordered to pay an administrative monetary penalty (&#8220;AMP&#8221;) of $8 million as well as pay restitution to everyone who paid them any money. Two individuals behind the companies were ordered to pay AMPs of $500,000 each, and a third individual was ordered to pay $35,000. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/court-throws-the-book-at-yellow-page-business-directory-scam/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Discoverability, continuing effects, and Competition Act limitation periods</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:55:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal left open the possibility that the discoverability principle may apply to the two-year limitation period established for private actions under section 36 of the Competition Act, but confirmed that the effects of a conspiracy are not a part of the offence and thus do not extend [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law suit alleging defamation by Competition Bureau allowed to proceed</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/law-suit-alleging-defamation-by-competition-bureau-allowed-to-proceed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/law-suit-alleging-defamation-by-competition-bureau-allowed-to-proceed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:41:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attacks on Reputation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ontario&#39;s top court recently allowed parts of a claim that the Competition Bureau defamed suspects when it an announced bid-rigging charges against them to proceed to trial. In February 2009, the Bureau announced that criminal bid-rigging charges had been laid against 14 individuals and seven companies accusing them of rigging bids for federal government contracts. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/law-suit-alleging-defamation-by-competition-bureau-allowed-to-proceed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pre-merger notification transaction size threshold increased to $77m</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/pre-merger-notification-transaction-size-threshold-increased-to-77m/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/pre-merger-notification-transaction-size-threshold-increased-to-77m/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:31:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1124</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau announced on February 7, 2012, that the pre-merger notification transaction size threshold will increase to $77 million, likely as of February 11, 2012. The party size threshold remains set at $400 million. Generally speaking, parties to proposed mergers must notify the Bureau in advance of closing where: The transaction relates to an [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/pre-merger-notification-transaction-size-threshold-increased-to-77m/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Bureau promises greater transparency in merger review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/competition-bureau-promises-greater-transparency-in-merger-review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/competition-bureau-promises-greater-transparency-in-merger-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:29:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1126</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On February 6, 2012, the Competition Bureau announced that it would start publishing monthly reports of concluded merger reviews. The reports will include the names of the parties, the industry sector involved, and the result of the Bureau&#39;s review. The Bureau has even published a sample report involving a fictitious transaction.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/competition-bureau-promises-greater-transparency-in-merger-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

