<?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; Competition Act</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/tag/competition-act/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>Discoverability does not apply to competition claims</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/discoverability-does-not-apply-to-competition-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/discoverability-does-not-apply-to-competition-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 21:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dywidag Systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Garfod PTY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[limitation period]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=943</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Court has recently ruled that the discoverability rule does not apply to extend the limitation period applicable to private actions launched to recover damages caused by breaches of the Competition Act.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/discoverability-does-not-apply-to-competition-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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 Year in Review 2007</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/the-litigator-2007/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/the-litigator-2007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:05:18 +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[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies Creditors Arrangement Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[construction bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[construction project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discriminatory pricing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inducing breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment Dealers Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: Michael Osborne , Jennifer Cantwell, Sandra Monardo, Michelle Booth, Sonny Ingram, Hooman Zardarzadeh

TOP STORIES
Ice storm
Ice supplier Arctic Glacier Inc. tried to crush its fledgling competitor, Polar Ice Express Inc. by unlawfully interfering with its economic relations, an Alberta court found...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/the-litigator-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cosmetic changes at Sears</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/04/cosmetic-changes-at-sears/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/04/cosmetic-changes-at-sears/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 03:43:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cosmetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Givenchy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[London Drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refusal to deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sears]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sears lost its bid to force suppliers of Dior and Givenchy cosmetics to keep supplying it when the Competition Tribunal denied it leave to bring an application under the Competition Act’s refusal to deal provisions in March 2007.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/04/cosmetic-changes-at-sears/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>Regulation of businesses in Canada through private litigation</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/regulation-of-businesses-in-canada-through-private-litigation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/regulation-of-businesses-in-canada-through-private-litigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:45:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[businesses in canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate structures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ford motor company of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liability provisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=196</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Regulation - Court decisions arising from private litigation under the common law (in Quebec, the Civil Code), and statutory remedies that supplement the common law, are an essential and often overlooked component of the regulation of businesses in Canada.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/regulation-of-businesses-in-canada-through-private-litigation/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>Intellectual property is not exempt from Competition Act’s reach</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/intellectual-property-is-not-exempt-from-competition-acts-reach/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/intellectual-property-is-not-exempt-from-competition-acts-reach/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2005 03:39:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominant position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assignment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusive dealing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industrial design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[market allocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sherman act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc. On November 2 2005, the Federal Court of Appeal held that where an agreement to assign a patent increases the assignee&#8217;s market power in excess of that inherent in the patent itself, the provision in the Patent Act (s. 50) allowing the assignment does not prevent the agreement [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/intellectual-property-is-not-exempt-from-competition-acts-reach/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada Post’s monopoly over mail collection confirmed</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/canada-post%e2%80%99s-monopoly-over-mail-collection-confirmed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/canada-post%e2%80%99s-monopoly-over-mail-collection-confirmed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:16:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada post corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal challenge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mail canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mail collection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory privilege]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=181</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Several companies providing outbound international mail collection services in competition with Canada Post have lost a key legal challenge to Canada Post’s monopoly.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/canada-post%e2%80%99s-monopoly-over-mail-collection-confirmed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>COMPETITION LAW UPDATE &#8211; March 2005</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/competition-law-update-march-2005/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/competition-law-update-march-2005/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:00:58 +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 dominant position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative monetary penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Angela Yadav]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barcode systems inc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitutionality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irreparable harm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lessening of competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[symbol technologies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=373</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Michael Osborne, Jennifer Cantwell, Paul Emerson, and Angela Yadav TOP STORIES Tread carefully when advertising &#8220;sale&#8221; prices: In January 2005, the Tribunal ruled that Sears Canada Inc. exaggerated savings in ads for tires. The &#8220;regular&#8221; prices advertised by Sears were not genuine and bona fide because Sears sold less than 2% of the tires [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/competition-law-update-march-2005/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

