<?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 Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/tag/competition-law/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 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>Private applicants flock to Tribunal</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/06/private-applicants-flock-to-tribunal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/06/private-applicants-flock-to-tribunal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[airlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iata paper tickets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nadeau ferme agricole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senators hockey tickets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.agmlawyers.com/litigatorrss.asp?file=archive/reslibrary_archives_private20080605_content</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What do hockey, chickens, and airlines have in common? They have all been the subject of recent private applications in the Competition Tribunal. On April 11, the Tribunal refused leave to John Annable to bring a private application attacking multi-game ticket packages for Senators hockey games. Then, on May 12, it granted leave to Nadeau [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/06/private-applicants-flock-to-tribunal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rebate program case settles</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/rebate-program-case-settles/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/rebate-program-case-settles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:57:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominant position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopolization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rebate programs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=335</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Canada Pipe Company Ltd. and the Competition Bureau have settled their long running dispute over the rebate program offered by Canada Pipe to its distributors by filing a consent agreement with the Competition Tribunal. This brings to an end an abuse of dominance case begun in 2002.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/rebate-program-case-settles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Parliamentary privilege trumps Competition Act, Tribunal rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/09/parliamentary-privilege-trumps-competition-act-tribunal-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/09/parliamentary-privilege-trumps-competition-act-tribunal-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:34:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Capital News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parliamentary Press Gallery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parliamentary privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refusal to deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Gautier]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=326</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After a 10 year struggle, Robert Gauthier, proprietor of now defunct The National Capital News Canada tried unsuccessfully to renew his application to the Competition Tribunal to force the Speaker of the House of Commons to grant him access to the Parliamentary Press Gallery.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/09/parliamentary-privilege-trumps-competition-act-tribunal-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dolby complaint silenced</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/06/dolby-complaint-silenced/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/06/dolby-complaint-silenced/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:03:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refusal to deal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=229</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sono Pro Inc., a Montreal professional audio equipment reseller, has lost its attempt to force Sonotechnique P.J.L. Inc. to supply it with Dolby products.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/06/dolby-complaint-silenced/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AGO contributes to ABA handbook</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/ago-contributes-to-aba-handbook/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/ago-contributes-to-aba-handbook/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 02:11:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american bar association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American Bar Association Handbook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation handbook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Indirect Purchaser Litigation Handbook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many Canadian class actions alleging price fixing conspiracies are run parallel to similar US class actions. As a result, this handbook will be useful to Canadian lawyers seeking to understand how the US class action system deals with issues surrounding indirect purchasers.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/ago-contributes-to-aba-handbook/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rebate program case to be reconsidered by Competition Tribunal</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/rebate-program-case-to-be-reconsidered-by-competition-tribunal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/rebate-program-case-to-be-reconsidered-by-competition-tribunal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2007 00:42:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominant position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopolization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rebate programs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=332</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On May 10, 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal to Canada Pipe Company Ltd. to appeal from a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal that substantially revised the test to be applied in cases of abuse of dominance.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/rebate-program-case-to-be-reconsidered-by-competition-tribunal/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>Dial D for deregulation. Massive deregulation and $15 m fines for abuse of dominance among major changes in Canada&#8217;s telecommunications industry</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/12/dial-d-for-deregulation-massive-deregulation-and-15-m-fines-for-abuse-of-dominance-among-major-changes-in-canadas-telecommunications-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/12/dial-d-for-deregulation-massive-deregulation-and-15-m-fines-for-abuse-of-dominance-among-major-changes-in-canadas-telecommunications-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:25:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominant position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative monetary penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[predatory pricing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refusal to deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[targeted pricing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telecommunications]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=221</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/12/dial-d-for-deregulation-massive-deregulation-and-15-m-fines-for-abuse-of-dominance-among-major-changes-in-canadas-telecommunications-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Tribunal dismisses first ever consent agreement challenge</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/competition-tribunal-dismisses-first-ever-consent-agreement-challenge/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/competition-tribunal-dismisses-first-ever-consent-agreement-challenge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2006 22:27:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angela Yadev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aboriginal rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Angela Yadav]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-trust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consent agreements]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=170</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Only third parties experiencing a first hand impact on a right or serious interest relating to competition can challenge consent agreements, the Competition Tribunal ruled in Burns Lake Native Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Competition and West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/competition-tribunal-dismisses-first-ever-consent-agreement-challenge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

