<?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 Tribunal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/tag/competition-tribunal/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>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>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>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>Essentials of Reviewable Matters</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/05/essentials-of-reviewable-matters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/05/essentials-of-reviewable-matters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2005 01:23:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominant position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative monetary penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusive dealing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctive relief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[market restriction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[merger provisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refusal to deal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=237</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Introduction The so-called &#8220;reviewable matters&#8221;[1] are a collection of provisions in the Competition Act[2] (the &#8220;Act&#8221;) that allow the Competition Tribunal (the &#8220;Tribunal&#8221;) 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, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/05/essentials-of-reviewable-matters/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>
		<item>
		<title>Dominant firms can have loyalty and rebate programs that encourage exclusivity, Tribunal rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/dominant-firms-can-have-loyalty-and-rebate-programs-that-encourage-exclusivity-tribunal-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/dominant-firms-can-have-loyalty-and-rebate-programs-that-encourage-exclusivity-tribunal-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2005 20:14:06 +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[commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusive dealing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refusal to deal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=179</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bibby, a division of Canada Pipe, dominates the market for cast iron drain, waste and vent pipes. Its rebate program encourages its customers to stock its products exclusively. But Bibby’s rebate program is not anti-competitive, and thus Bibby did not abuse its dominant position, the Competition Tribunal ruled in a decision released in February, 2005.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/dominant-firms-can-have-loyalty-and-rebate-programs-that-encourage-exclusivity-tribunal-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Sears decision: much needed clarification or just spinning our wheels?</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/the-sears-decision-much-needed-clarification-or-just-spinning-our-wheels/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/the-sears-decision-much-needed-clarification-or-just-spinning-our-wheels/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2005 01:13:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Cantwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative monetary penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[binding guidelines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitutionality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fundamental freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial interpretation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[King]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lessening of competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sears]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=346</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 (&#8220;AMP&#8221;) under the ordinary selling price provisions, and the Bureau&#8217;s controversial non-binding Guidelines on [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/the-sears-decision-much-needed-clarification-or-just-spinning-our-wheels/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Tribunal orders sale of landfill (again); CWS appeals (again)</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/competition-tribunal-orders-sale-of-landfill-again-cws-appeals-again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/competition-tribunal-orders-sale-of-landfill-again-cws-appeals-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:07:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acquisition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divestiture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[landfills]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[southwestern Ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=344</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Canadian Waste Services has appealed the latest Tribunal decision in its long-running merger case to the Federal Court of Appeal. On June 28, 2004, the Competition Tribunal rejected CWS "change of circumstances" application that sought to rescind the Tribunal’s October 2001, order that it sell the Ridge landfill. The Tribunal made that order after concluding that CWS’ acquisition of the Ridge would substantially lessen and prevent competition.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/competition-tribunal-orders-sale-of-landfill-again-cws-appeals-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

