<?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; Developments</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/feed/?cat=944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law,  Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 01:52:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Metal merger not anti-competitive, Bureau says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/05/metal-merger-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=metal-merger-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/05/metal-merger-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 01:52:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Samuel, Son &#38; Co. Limited can complete its acquisition of Wilkinson Steel and Metals Inc. after the Competition Bureau announced that it does not intend to challenge the deal. Samuel and Wilkinson process, distribute and sell various steel and speciality metals. Samuel operates service centres across Canada and Wilkinson conducts business in Western Canada. The&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/05/metal-merger-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/05/metal-merger-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Japanese auto-parts maker to pay record $30 million fine for bid-rigging</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/japanese-auto-parts-maker-to-pay-record-30-million-fine-for-bid-rigging/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=japanese-auto-parts-maker-to-pay-record-30-million-fine-for-bid-rigging</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/japanese-auto-parts-maker-to-pay-record-30-million-fine-for-bid-rigging/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:16:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2442</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yazaki Corporation was fined $30 million after pleading guilty to rigging bids for wire harnesses supplied to Honda and Toyota for the 2005.5 Honda Ridgeline, 2006 Honda Civic and 2006 Toyota Corolla/Matrix models. The volume of commerce affected in Canada was about US $260 million. This is the largest fine ever to be ordered for bid-rigging&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/japanese-auto-parts-maker-to-pay-record-30-million-fine-for-bid-rigging/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/japanese-auto-parts-maker-to-pay-record-30-million-fine-for-bid-rigging/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Record $5 million bid rigging fine for auto parts maker</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/record-5-million-bid-rigging-fine-for-auto-parts-maker/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=record-5-million-bid-rigging-fine-for-auto-parts-maker</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/record-5-million-bid-rigging-fine-for-auto-parts-maker/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:06:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2366</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently ordered Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd., a Japanese supplier of motor vehicle components, to pay a fine of $5 million after it pleaded guilty to participating in an international bid-rigging conspiracy. To date, this is the largest fine a court has imposed in Canada for a bid-rigging offence under&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/record-5-million-bid-rigging-fine-for-auto-parts-maker/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/record-5-million-bid-rigging-fine-for-auto-parts-maker/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Leon’s acquisition of The Brick not anti-competitive, Bureau says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/leons-acquisition-of-the-brick-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=leons-acquisition-of-the-brick-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/leons-acquisition-of-the-brick-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:07:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau announced that it does not intend to challenge the acquisition of The Brick Ltd. by Leon’s Furniture Limited. The Bureau’s investigation revealed that while both parties are incredibly close rivals, particularly in the retailing of furniture and mattresses, the transaction was unlikely to substantially lessen or prevent competition since effective national and regional&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/leons-acquisition-of-the-brick-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/leons-acquisition-of-the-brick-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guilty pleas continue in gasoline price-fixing conspiracy</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/guilty-pleas-continue-in-gasoline-price-fixing-conspiracy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=guilty-pleas-continue-in-gasoline-price-fixing-conspiracy</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/guilty-pleas-continue-in-gasoline-price-fixing-conspiracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:04:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2349</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two individuals have pleaded guilty to fixing the price of gasoline in Sherbrooke, Quebec. The Quebec Superior Court sentenced them to pay $8,000 in fines. To date, 33 individuals and seven companies have pleaded guilty or were found guilty of gas price-fixing. Fines in excess of $3 million have been levied and sentences to be served&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/guilty-pleas-continue-in-gasoline-price-fixing-conspiracy/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/guilty-pleas-continue-in-gasoline-price-fixing-conspiracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>LifeLabs BC&#8217;s proposed acquisition of BC Biomedical not anti-competitive, Bureau says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/lifelabs-bcs-proposed-acquisition-of-bc-biomedical-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=lifelabs-bcs-proposed-acquisition-of-bc-biomedical-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/lifelabs-bcs-proposed-acquisition-of-bc-biomedical-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:18:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bc biomedical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bc medical services commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lifelabs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2324</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau announced that it does not intend to challenge LifeLabs BC LP&#8217;s acquisition of BC Biomedical Laboratories Ltd. LifeLabs and BC Biomedical are community-based facilities that provide diagnostic testing services to patients, including specimen collection and lab testing outside of hospitals. Both LifeLabs and BC Biomedical provide services in the Lower Mainland of British&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/lifelabs-bcs-proposed-acquisition-of-bc-biomedical-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/lifelabs-bcs-proposed-acquisition-of-bc-biomedical-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bell agrees to sell channels to gain Bureau approval of Astral takeover</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bell-agrees-to-sell-channels-to-gain-bureau-approval-of-astral-takeover/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bell-agrees-to-sell-channels-to-gain-bureau-approval-of-astral-takeover</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bell-agrees-to-sell-channels-to-gain-bureau-approval-of-astral-takeover/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:26:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2293</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau has reached an agreement with BCE Inc. (Bell), in relation to its proposed acquisition of Astral Media Inc. Bell agreed to divest itself of Astral’s ownership of several specialty channels, including, The Family Channel, Teletoon, and The Cartoon Network. Bell must also refrain from imposing bundling requirements on providers who want to&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bell-agrees-to-sell-channels-to-gain-bureau-approval-of-astral-takeover/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bell-agrees-to-sell-channels-to-gain-bureau-approval-of-astral-takeover/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bureau clears National Oilwell Varco’s acquisition of Robbins &amp; Myers</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bureau-clears-national-oilwell-varcos-acquisition-of-robbins-myers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bureau-clears-national-oilwell-varcos-acquisition-of-robbins-myers</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bureau-clears-national-oilwell-varcos-acquisition-of-robbins-myers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2013 03:28:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2280</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau announced that it does not intend to challenge National Oilwell Varco’s acquisition of Robbins &#38; Myers. National and R&#38;M provide products, including motor components and blowout preventers, and other services in the oil, gas and extraction industry. The Bureau’s preliminary review focused on National and R&#38;M’s competitors in various product categories. The Bureau&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bureau-clears-national-oilwell-varcos-acquisition-of-robbins-myers/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bureau-clears-national-oilwell-varcos-acquisition-of-robbins-myers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Landfill divestiture order upheld</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/landfill-divestiture-order-upheld/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=landfill-divestiture-order-upheld</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/landfill-divestiture-order-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:22:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2267</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tervita (formerly CCS Corporation) has lost its appeal from the Competition Tribunal&#8217;s decision that its acquisition of the Babkirk hazardous waste site would lead to a substantial prevention in the market for the disposal of hazardous waste in Northeastern British Columbia. The Federal Court of Appeal&#8217;s decision was announced by the Bureau on February 11,&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/landfill-divestiture-order-upheld/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/landfill-divestiture-order-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Acquisition of retail hardware company cleared</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/acquisition-of-retail-hardware-company-cleared/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=acquisition-of-retail-hardware-company-cleared</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/acquisition-of-retail-hardware-company-cleared/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:54:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2230</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau announced that it does not intend to challenge the proposed acquisition of Paulin and Co. by The Hillman Companies Inc., both of which are suppliers of retail hardware to retail stores in Canada. Retail hardware products include fasteners, such as nuts, bolts, and other related accessories. The Bureau reviewed the transaction and concluded&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/acquisition-of-retail-hardware-company-cleared/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/acquisition-of-retail-hardware-company-cleared/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Yellow Page&#8217; Business Directory Scam Fine Upheld</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/yellow-page-business-directory-scam-fine-upheld/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=yellow-page-business-directory-scam-fine-upheld</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/yellow-page-business-directory-scam-fine-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:57:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2212</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In early 2012, four closely related companies and individuals associated with those companies  operated a  ‘yellow page’ business directory scam and were ordered to pay administrative monetary penalties over $8 million. The Court of Appeal recently heard an appeal by one of those individuals who claimed he was deprived of a fair hearing due to the application&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/yellow-page-business-directory-scam-fine-upheld/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/yellow-page-business-directory-scam-fine-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Consent agreement resolves landfill acquisition concerns</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/consent-agreement-resolves-landfill-acquisition-concerns/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=consent-agreement-resolves-landfill-acquisition-concerns</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/consent-agreement-resolves-landfill-acquisition-concerns/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:54:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2218</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau has reached a consent agreement with WM Québec Inc, a subsidiary of Waste Management Inc., regarding its proposed acquisition of the assets of RCI Environment Inc. Both companies provide solid non-hazardous waste collection services in parts of Western Québec. The consent agreement resolves the Bureau’s concerns that the acquisition would substantially lessen or&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/consent-agreement-resolves-landfill-acquisition-concerns/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/consent-agreement-resolves-landfill-acquisition-concerns/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bureau clears RBC&#8217;s acquisition of Ally Canada</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-clears-rbcs-acquisition-of-ally-canada/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bureau-clears-rbcs-acquisition-of-ally-canada</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-clears-rbcs-acquisition-of-ally-canada/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:51:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2222</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau will not challenge Royal Bank of Canada’s acquisition of Ally Credit Canada Limited, ResMor Trust Company, and certain Canadian affiliates. The transaction involves Ally Canada’s business in consumer and commercial automobile financing and personal banking. The Bureau’s review focused on various product markets including, indirect consumer automobile financing; subvention financing; floor plan financing;&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-clears-rbcs-acquisition-of-ally-canada/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-clears-rbcs-acquisition-of-ally-canada/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bureau to use compulsory evidence gathering powers first, Pecman says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-to-use-compulsory-evidence-gathering-powers-first-pecman-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bureau-to-use-compulsory-evidence-gathering-powers-first-pecman-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-to-use-compulsory-evidence-gathering-powers-first-pecman-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:20:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau&#8217;s first course of action will be to seek legally binding section 11 orders for production of documents from targets of civil inquiries (other than mergers), instead of relying on voluntary production, interim Competition Commissioner John Pecman announced in a recent speech. Section 11 of the Competition Act allows the Bureau to seek&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-to-use-compulsory-evidence-gathering-powers-first-pecman-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-to-use-compulsory-evidence-gathering-powers-first-pecman-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UCDA and IBC reach settlement</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/ucda-and-ibc-reach-settlement/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ucda-and-ibc-reach-settlement</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/ucda-and-ibc-reach-settlement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:18:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Applications]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2086</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Used Car Dealers Association of Ontario and the Insurance Bureau of Canada have settled UCDA&#8217;s refusal to deal case. UCDA is a trade association representing 4,500 Ontario car dealers. Its Auto Check service provides dealers with information about the accident history of used vehicles. UCDA needs claims data from IBC to offer Auto Check.&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/ucda-and-ibc-reach-settlement/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/ucda-and-ibc-reach-settlement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alberta company charged with foreign corruption</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/alberta-company-charged-with-foreign-corruption/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=alberta-company-charged-with-foreign-corruption</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/alberta-company-charged-with-foreign-corruption/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:00:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Anti-corruption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-corruption]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2070</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Alberta-based Griffiths Energy International Inc. has been charged with violating the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. In November 2011, the company&#8217;s new management discovered that the former management had entered into consulting contracts with two entities owned and controlled by a foreign public official and his spouse. The company investigated and then self-reported and&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/alberta-company-charged-with-foreign-corruption/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/alberta-company-charged-with-foreign-corruption/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pre-merger notification threshold increased to $80 million</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/pre-merger-notification-threshold-increased-to-80-million/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=pre-merger-notification-threshold-increased-to-80-million</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/pre-merger-notification-threshold-increased-to-80-million/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:34:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau announced on February 8, 2013, that the pre-merger notification size threshold will increase to $80 million, effective January 12, 2013. The party size threshold remains set at $400 million. Generally, the Bureau must be notified of a proposed merger before closing where: 1.The transaction relates to an operating business in Canada; 2.The&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/pre-merger-notification-threshold-increased-to-80-million/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/pre-merger-notification-threshold-increased-to-80-million/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lights, camera, no action: Bureau clears film distribution deal</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/lights-camera-no-action-bureau-clears-film-distribution-deal/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=lights-camera-no-action-bureau-clears-film-distribution-deal</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/lights-camera-no-action-bureau-clears-film-distribution-deal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 22:02:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1948</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Entertainment One Ltd. can wrap up its acquisition of Alliance Films Holdings Inc. after the Competition Bureau issued a &#8220;no action letter&#8221; on January 3, 2012, indicating that the Commissioner of Competition does not intend to challenge the deal. Both eOne and Alliance are major competitors for the distribution of films in Canada with substantial&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/lights-camera-no-action-bureau-clears-film-distribution-deal/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/lights-camera-no-action-bureau-clears-film-distribution-deal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guilty Pleas Continue in Quebec Gas Price-Fixing Conspiracy</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/guilty-pleas-continue-in-quebec-gas-price-fixing-conspiracy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=guilty-pleas-continue-in-quebec-gas-price-fixing-conspiracy</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/guilty-pleas-continue-in-quebec-gas-price-fixing-conspiracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 20:38:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1938</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An individual retailer operating under the Petro-Canada banner has pleaded guilty to fixing the price of gasoline in Sherbrooke, Quebec, the Competition Bureau announced on December 28, 2012. The retailer was sentenced to a fine of $5,000. To date, 28 individuals and 7 companies have pleaded guilty. Fines in excess of $3 million have been&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/guilty-pleas-continue-in-quebec-gas-price-fixing-conspiracy/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/guilty-pleas-continue-in-quebec-gas-price-fixing-conspiracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More charges come down the sewer pipe</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/more-charges-come-down-the-sewer-pipe/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=more-charges-come-down-the-sewer-pipe</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/more-charges-come-down-the-sewer-pipe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:27:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1925</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau has announced an additional 23 criminal charges against Kelly Sani-Vac Inc., its vice-president, and the former president of Chalifoux Sani Laurentides Inc., for bid-rigging municipal sewer services contracts in Montreal. The charges in question relate to 15 calls for tender between September 2009 and September 2011. The approximate value for the sewer&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/more-charges-come-down-the-sewer-pipe/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/more-charges-come-down-the-sewer-pipe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Merged pork processors unlikely to hog market, Bureau rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/merged-pork-processors-unlikely-to-hog-market-bureau-rules/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=merged-pork-processors-unlikely-to-hog-market-bureau-rules</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/merged-pork-processors-unlikely-to-hog-market-bureau-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:27:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1913</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Acquisitions of two ailing pork producers by large meat processors will not be challenged, the Competition Bureau announced on December 17, 2012. Meat processor Olymel L.P. is buying Western Canada’s largest hog producer, Big Sky Farms Inc., and Maple Leaf Foods is buying Western Canada second largest hog producer, Puratone Corporation. Big Sky is currently&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/merged-pork-processors-unlikely-to-hog-market-bureau-rules/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/merged-pork-processors-unlikely-to-hog-market-bureau-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Bureau drops charges after error taints investigation</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/competition-bureau-drops-charges-after-error-taints-investigation/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-bureau-drops-charges-after-error-taints-investigation</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/competition-bureau-drops-charges-after-error-taints-investigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 23:34:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1898</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Progressive Waste Solutions Ltd. and its subsidiary, BFI Canada Inc. no longer face charges that they violated a July 2010 consent agreement they reached with the Competition Bureau as a condition of approval of a merger.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/competition-bureau-drops-charges-after-error-taints-investigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Bureau clears electrical distributors merger</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/competition-bureau-clears-electrical-distributors-merger/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-bureau-clears-electrical-distributors-merger</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/competition-bureau-clears-electrical-distributors-merger/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:48:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1886</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau will not challenge the merger of two major distributors of electrical products, WESCO Distribution Inc. and EECOL Electric Corp., it announced on December 7, 2012. The Bureau found that the two distributors compete to sell low voltage electrical components in 17 local markets in Western Canada. The Bureau also found that geographic&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/competition-bureau-clears-electrical-distributors-merger/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/competition-bureau-clears-electrical-distributors-merger/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BC man extradited to US to face deceptive telemarketing charges</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/bc-man-extradited-to-us-to-face-deceptive-telemarketing-charges/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bc-man-extradited-to-us-to-face-deceptive-telemarketing-charges</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/bc-man-extradited-to-us-to-face-deceptive-telemarketing-charges/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2012 14:05:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1845</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[William Robertson must face charges in the United States that he was involved in a telemarketing scheme targeting elderly people in the US, a BC judge ordered recently. A joint FBI-RCMP investigation found evidence that employees at a Vancouver boiler room would tell victims they had won large sums of money, but had to pay&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/bc-man-extradited-to-us-to-face-deceptive-telemarketing-charges/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/bc-man-extradited-to-us-to-face-deceptive-telemarketing-charges/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fraud and telemarketing charges laid against five individuals</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/fraud-and-telemarketing-charges-laid-against-five-individuals/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fraud-and-telemarketing-charges-laid-against-five-individuals</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/fraud-and-telemarketing-charges-laid-against-five-individuals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2012 14:04:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1848</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau announced on December 7 that fraud charges under the Criminal Code, and misleading advertising and deceptive telemarketing charges under the Competition Act have been laid against five individuals in connection with two Montreal telemarketing operations. One of the operations promoted government grants to American citizens. The other promoted the sale of office&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/fraud-and-telemarketing-charges-laid-against-five-individuals/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/fraud-and-telemarketing-charges-laid-against-five-individuals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Building trust, enhancing relationships top priority, says Competition Commissioner</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/building-trust-enhancing-relationships-top-priority-says-competition-commissioner/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=building-trust-enhancing-relationships-top-priority-says-competition-commissioner</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/building-trust-enhancing-relationships-top-priority-says-competition-commissioner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2012 03:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1852</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John Pecman, Canada&#8217;s new Interim Commissioner of Competition, signaled a shift towards a more collaborative approach to enforcement in a recent speech. Noting the &#8220;fundamentally important role the Bureau plays&#8221; in ensuring a &#8220;prosperous, growing, Canadian economy&#8221;, Mr. Pecman elaborated three priority areas: Benefiting Canadians, through focused enforcement and through strategic regulatory interventions; Applying Canada&#8217;s&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/building-trust-enhancing-relationships-top-priority-says-competition-commissioner/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/building-trust-enhancing-relationships-top-priority-says-competition-commissioner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Cautionary Tale in Comparative Advertising</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:11:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1814</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[National Energy Corporation was recently ordered by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to stop distributing a comparative advertising brochure which contained false and misleading statements about the services and products of its competitor, Direct Energy Marketing Limited. National Energy&#8217;s brochure misled consumers by overstating the price increases Direct Energy had imposed on its customers&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Government denies Petronas&#8217; bid to acquire Progress Energy</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/government-denies-petronas-bid-to-acquire-progress-energy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=government-denies-petronas-bid-to-acquire-progress-energy</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/government-denies-petronas-bid-to-acquire-progress-energy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 05:13:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1789</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Industry Minister Christian Paradis announced late Friday night that the government is not satisfied that the proposed acquisition of Calgary-based natural gas company Progress Energy Resources  Corp. by Malaysia&#8217;s state-owned oil company Petronas was likely to be of net benefit to Canada. This means that the deal cannot go ahead. The Investment Canada Act requires&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/government-denies-petronas-bid-to-acquire-progress-energy/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/government-denies-petronas-bid-to-acquire-progress-energy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Consumers’ power to be tested as Supreme Court set to hear appeals on price fixing</title>
		<link>http://business.financialpost.com/2012/10/16/consumers-power-to-be-tested-as-supreme-court-set-to-hear-appeals-on-price-fixing/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=consumers-power-to-be-tested-as-supreme-court-set-to-hear-appeals-on-price-fixing</link>
		<comments>http://business.financialpost.com/2012/10/16/consumers-power-to-be-tested-as-supreme-court-set-to-hear-appeals-on-price-fixing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:05:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1782</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["The cases are important because they will determine whether or not consumers can recover for losses caused by price-fixing several levels ahead of them in the distribution chain," said Michael Osborne, a Toronto-based litigator at Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.financialpost.com/2012/10/16/consumers-power-to-be-tested-as-supreme-court-set-to-hear-appeals-on-price-fixing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Irving Oil Accused of Fixing Gas Prices</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/irving-oil-accused-of-fixing-gas-prices/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=irving-oil-accused-of-fixing-gas-prices</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/irving-oil-accused-of-fixing-gas-prices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:38:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gasoline price fixing; Irving Oil;]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1759</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Criminal charges have been laid against Irving Oil and its Quebec manager, alleging that they fixed the price of gasoline in Victoriaville, Thetford Mines and Sherbrooke, Quebec. The charges are part of the Competition Bureau’s ongoing investigation into gas price-fixing in certain Quebec communities. To date, 39 individuals and 15 companies have been charged. Twenty-seven individuals&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/irving-oil-accused-of-fixing-gas-prices/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/irving-oil-accused-of-fixing-gas-prices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Micron settles SRAM price-fixing allegations</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:30:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IBM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samsung]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SRAM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Micron has agreed to pay $300,000 to settle a class proceeding alleging that it participated in a conspiracy to fix prices for Static Random Access Memory (SRAM). SRAM is a type of memory used in computers, cellular phones, and game consoles. Micron also agreed to cooperate with the plaintiffs in the ongoing proceedings in British&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Abuse of Dominance Guidelines Provide Less Guidance</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/new-abuse-of-dominance-guidelines-provide-less-guidance/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=new-abuse-of-dominance-guidelines-provide-less-guidance</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/new-abuse-of-dominance-guidelines-provide-less-guidance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Sep 2012 03:12:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada Pipe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1722</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau has released the final version of its updated Enforcement Guidelines on Abuse of Dominance. The new Abuse Guidelines are much slimmer than the 2001 guidelines they replace. Gone is the economic approach of the old guidelines. Instead, the 2012 guidelines contain little more than a bare-bones summary of the Competition Act&#8217;s abuse&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/new-abuse-of-dominance-guidelines-provide-less-guidance/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/new-abuse-of-dominance-guidelines-provide-less-guidance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Waste Services Companies Trashed Consent Agreement, Bureau says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/waste-services-companies-trashed-consent-agreement-bureau-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=waste-services-companies-trashed-consent-agreement-bureau-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/waste-services-companies-trashed-consent-agreement-bureau-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:58:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1630</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau has charged two waste companies, Progressive Waste Solutions Ltd. and its subsidiary, BFI Canada Inc., with violating several terms of a consent agreement they entered into with the Bureau in June 2010. The June 2010 consent agreement resolved the Bureau&#8217;s concerns that a merger between IESI-BFC Ltd. and Waste Services Inc. (now&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/waste-services-companies-trashed-consent-agreement-bureau-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/waste-services-companies-trashed-consent-agreement-bureau-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Charges laid for Online Business Directory Schemers</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-laid-for-online-business-directory-schemers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=charges-laid-for-online-business-directory-schemers</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-laid-for-online-business-directory-schemers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:32:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brigid Wilkinson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1622</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On September 4, 2012, four companies and individuals are scheduled to appear in the Quebec Provincial Court following charges laid for deceptive telemarketing activities.  After a Competition Bureau investigation, criminal charges were laid against Solutions Executives Inc., Corporation Oxford-Data Inc., Sapphire Media Group and Platinum Direct Resources for violations of the Competition Act and the&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-laid-for-online-business-directory-schemers/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-laid-for-online-business-directory-schemers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More guilty pleas from Sewer Bid-Riggers</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/more-guilty-pleas-from-sewer-bid-riggers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=more-guilty-pleas-from-sewer-bid-riggers</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/more-guilty-pleas-from-sewer-bid-riggers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:31:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brigid Wilkinson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1620</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau has garnered yet another guilty plea in its clean-up of the Montreal sewer bid-rigging conspiracy. Canalisation Nord Américaine Ltée pleaded guilty in the Quebec Superior Court last Friday and will pay a $15,000 fine.  They were charged on November 22, 2011, with 3 counts of bid-rigging, in relation to contracts worth approximately&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/more-guilty-pleas-from-sewer-bid-riggers/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/more-guilty-pleas-from-sewer-bid-riggers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real estate consulting firm guilty of bid rigging</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/real-estate-consulting-firm-guilty-of-bid-rigging/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=real-estate-consulting-firm-guilty-of-bid-rigging</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/real-estate-consulting-firm-guilty-of-bid-rigging/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:55:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Yonatan Lipetz, Summer Student</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1608</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau’s prosecution of the real estate advisory bid-rigging conspiracy for federal contracts continued with the announcement on July 30 that Corporate Research Group (CRG), pleaded guilty. CRG collaborated with Louis Facchini – who was carrying on business as First Porter Consultancy – in submitting bids in response to the request for standing offers&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/real-estate-consulting-firm-guilty-of-bid-rigging/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/real-estate-consulting-firm-guilty-of-bid-rigging/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Aircraft part maker merger cleared</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/aircraft-part-maker-merger-cleared/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=aircraft-part-maker-merger-cleared</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/aircraft-part-maker-merger-cleared/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 04:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1558</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau announced on July 26, 2012, that it would allow United Technology Corporation to buy Goodrich Corporation. Both UTC and Goodrich make parts for aircraft, and the Bureau&#8217;s analysis found that overlap between the two companies would lessen competition in markets for electrical generators and engine controls. However, UTC and Goodrich agreed with&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/aircraft-part-maker-merger-cleared/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/aircraft-part-maker-merger-cleared/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mandatory Retirement for Law Firm Partners Upheld</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/mandatory-retirement-for-law-firm-partners-upheld/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mandatory-retirement-for-law-firm-partners-upheld</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/mandatory-retirement-for-law-firm-partners-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:20:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1528</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Partners of limited liability partnerships are partners, not employees of the firm, the BC Court of Appeal ruled on July 19. Provisions in human rights legislation prohibiting discrimination in relation to employment because of age (and presumably other grounds) do not apply to partners and partnerships. Thus the BC Human Rights Tribunal did not have&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/mandatory-retirement-for-law-firm-partners-upheld/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/mandatory-retirement-for-law-firm-partners-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Bureau Cleans Up Montreal Sewer Conspiracy</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/competition-bureau-cleans-up-montreal-sewer-conspiracy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-bureau-cleans-up-montreal-sewer-conspiracy</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/competition-bureau-cleans-up-montreal-sewer-conspiracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:21:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau's clean-up of the Montreal sewer bid-rigging conspiracy continued with the announcement that a second company and one of its executives pleaded guilty.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/competition-bureau-cleans-up-montreal-sewer-conspiracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Justice Brown Reins in Post-Discovery Summary Judgment Motions</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/justice-brown-reigns-in-post-discovery-summary-judgment-motions/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=justice-brown-reigns-in-post-discovery-summary-judgment-motions</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/justice-brown-reigns-in-post-discovery-summary-judgment-motions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:40:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1435</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In his recent Endorsement in 1318214 Ontario Limited v. Sobeys Capital Incorporated (2012 ONSC 2784), Justice David Brown provides his views on an emerging trend in the Toronto Region: requests by litigants to bring lengthy motions for summary judgment after discoveries have been completed.&#160; Justice Brown is concerned with the prevalence of such motions due&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/justice-brown-reigns-in-post-discovery-summary-judgment-motions/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/justice-brown-reigns-in-post-discovery-summary-judgment-motions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Injunction chickens come home to roost</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/injunction-chickens-come-home-to-roost/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=injunction-chickens-come-home-to-roost</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/injunction-chickens-come-home-to-roost/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:37:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injunctions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Tribunal has the power to order an inquiry into damages arising from an interim order granted by the Tribunal, but can refuse to order damages where special circumstances exist.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/injunction-chickens-come-home-to-roost/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More gas price fixing guilty pleas</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/more-gas-price-fixing-guilty-pleas/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. 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.&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/more-gas-price-fixing-guilty-pleas/">[...]</a>]]></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>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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. 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&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/pre-merger-notification-transaction-size-threshold-increased-to-77m/">[...]</a>]]></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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. 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>
