<?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; private applications</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/tag/private-applications/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>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>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>
	</channel>
</rss>

