AMPs have become widespread in administrative schemes in Canada because they fill a gap between traditional administrative and criminal enforcement tools. This paper explores the rationales that are behind the spread of AMPs in Canadian law. It outlines a number of AMP schemes in federal and provincial legislation. Finally, it discusses three issues that commonly arise in AMP proceedings: the availability of a due diligence defence, whether AMP provisions apply retrospectively, and interpretive difficulties raised by the novelty of language used in AMP provisions.

Full article

Canada’s telecommunications industry is about to experience a massive shift from intrusive sectoral regulation to open markets. The Competition Bureau recently issued guidance on the application of the abuse of dominance provisions of the Competition Act to the telecommunications industry. Industry Minister Bernier has introduced legislation to provide for fines of up to $15 million against a telecommunications service provider found to have abused its dominant position. Mr. Bernier has also announced new rules that will accelerate deregulation of local telephone services.

Full article

Introduction The so-called “reviewable matters”[1] are a collection of provisions in the Competition Act[2] (the “Act”) that allow the Competition Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) to order remedies for various situations that can harm competition. Although these provisions are quite disparate, they share some important characteristics. First, they are all civil in nature. This means that civil, [...]

Full article

by Michael Osborne, Jennifer Cantwell, Paul Emerson, and Angela Yadav TOP STORIES Tread carefully when advertising “sale” prices: In January 2005, the Tribunal ruled that Sears Canada Inc. exaggerated savings in ads for tires. The “regular” prices advertised by Sears were not genuine and bona fide because Sears sold less than 2% of the tires [...]

Full article

On January 24, 2005 , the Competition Tribunal determined that Sears Canada Inc. violated the ordinary selling price provisions of the Competition Act (subsection 74.01(3)).[1] In light of the recent success of the Competition Bureau in obtaining hefty administrative monetary penalties (“AMP”) under the ordinary selling price provisions, and the Bureau’s controversial non-binding Guidelines on [...]

Full article