<?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; abuse of dominance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/tag/abuse-of-dominance/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>Competition Tribunal Cases: A Two Year Review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/07/competition-tribunal-cases-a-two-year-review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/07/competition-tribunal-cases-a-two-year-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:19:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada Pipe Company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nadeau]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polar Ice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rebate program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saskatchewan Wheet Pool]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=445</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the last two years, there have been no abuse of dominance cases and one contested merger case, which was dropped. Recently, however, amendments to the Competition Act transfer jurisdiction over some anti-competitive agreements and price maintenance to the Tribunal. 

This article reviews the cases in the Tribunal over the last two years and the recent amendments to the Competition Act, as they affect practice in the Tribunal.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/07/competition-tribunal-cases-a-two-year-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Review &#8211; May 2009</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/05/competition-law-review-may-2009/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/05/competition-law-review-may-2009/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 19:05:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-competitive conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbonless paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic effect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irreparable harm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopolization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[predatory pricing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: Michael Osborne, Sonny Ingram, Sandra Monardo, Michelle Booth, Adam Wygodny, and Donna Wilson.

Top stories
Canada’s new competition law
Budget 2009 includes the most significant amendments to the Competition Act in a generation:
•	A new “per se” conspiracy offence makes it illegal for competitors or potential competitors to fix prices, allocate markets, or control production of a product, even if there is no effect on competition...and more...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/05/competition-law-review-may-2009/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Review of Competition Law &#8211; April 2007</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/04/review-of-competition-law-april-2007/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/04/review-of-competition-law-april-2007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:09:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2007]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominant position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Givenchy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lessening of competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[London Drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sears]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telecommunications]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=365</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[THE LITIGATOR - Review of Competition Law - April 2007

Contributors: Michael Osborne , Jennifer Cantwell, Kyle Peterson , Sonny Ingram, Michael Binetti, and Adam Wygodny 

TOP STORIES 

Appeal court revises test for abuse of dominant position
In identifying anti-competitive acts, one must ask whether the conduct had an intended predatory, exclusionary or disciplinary effect on a competitor, not on competition, the Federal Court of Appeal held in overturning the Tribunal’s 2005 finding that Canada Pipe’s rebate program was not anti-competitive....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/04/review-of-competition-law-april-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canadian telecom review calls for deregulation and reliance on market forces</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/canadian-telecom-review-calls-for-deregulation-and-reliance-on-market-forces/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/canadian-telecom-review-calls-for-deregulation-and-reliance-on-market-forces/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2006 01:34:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CRTC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telecommunications]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=358</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On March 22, 2006, the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel issued a report recommending reliance on market forces and competition policy, instead of regulation, in the telecom sector.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/canadian-telecom-review-calls-for-deregulation-and-reliance-on-market-forces/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Update &#8211; 2005 Year in Review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/competition-law-update-2005-year-in-review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/competition-law-update-2005-year-in-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Mar 2006 03:18:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[causation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consent agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rebate programs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shell corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[symbol technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telecommunications]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=378</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: Michael Osborne , Jennifer Cantwell, Paul Emerson, Angela Yadav, Sonny Ingram, and Michael Binetti

TOP STORIES
Rona keeps Sherbrooke store
In May, the Competition Tribunal rescinded a September 2003 consent agreement, allowing home improvement retailer Rona Inc. to keep the Sherbrooke , Quebec store it agreed to sell to gain Bureau approval of its acquisition of Réno-Dépot. The Tribunal found that Home Depot’s imminent arrival was a change in the circumstances that led to the consent agreement, and that the agreement would not have been made in the present circumstances. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner’s arguments that it should refuse to rescind the agreement as a matter of discretion.

The Tribunal’s decision is the first time that the Competition Act’s variation / rescission provision (s. 106) has been applied to a consent agreement. Because consent agreements are negotiated and made by the parties, not the Tribunal, the Tribunal must look to the intentions of the parties. The Tribunal also emphasized that the Commissioner must be responsive to changing circumstances.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/competition-law-update-2005-year-in-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Update 2003</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/02/competition-law-update-2003/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/02/competition-law-update-2003/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:20:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative monetary penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-competitive conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anton Piller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barcode systems inc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies Creditors Arrangement Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mareva injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prohibition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real and substantial connection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search warrants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[symbol technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=367</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TOP STORIES Competition Bureau proposes new &#8220;per se&#8221; conspiracy provision: Agreements between competitors for the purpose of or that have the effect of fixing prices, allocating customers or markets, or restricting output would be illegal even if they do not harm competition. If passed, this provision&#8217;s wide scope could make many existing agreements unlawful. Other [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/02/competition-law-update-2003/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

