<?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; symbol technologies</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/tag/symbol-technologies/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law and Commercial Litigation Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:37:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<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In May, the Competition Tribunal rescinded a September 2003 consent agreement, allowing home improvement retailer Rona Inc. to keep the Sherbrooke , Quebec store it agreed to sell to gain Bureau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>Shell corporation cannot bring application, Tribunal rule</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/shell-corporation-cannot-bring-application-tribunal-rule/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/shell-corporation-cannot-bring-application-tribunal-rule/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2005 02:09:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barcode systems inc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refusal to deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shell corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[summary disposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[symbol technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tribunal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Symbol Technologies Canada ULC v. Barcode Systems Inc.[1] A corporation that is no longer a going concern cannot maintain a private application under s. 75, the Tribunal held in October 2005. In early 2004, the Tribunal granted Winnipeg bar code equipment seller Barcode Systems Inc.leave to commence a private application to force Symbol Technologies Canada [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/shell-corporation-cannot-bring-application-tribunal-rule/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>Competition Law Update 2003</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/02/competition-law-update-2003/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/02/competition-law-update-2003/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:20:38 +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[Administrative monetary penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-competitive conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anton Piller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barcode systems inc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies Creditors Arrangement Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mareva injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prohibition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real and substantial connection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search warrants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[symbol technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=367</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TOP STORIES Competition Bureau proposes new &#8220;per se&#8221; conspiracy provision: Agreements between competitors for the purpose of or that have the effect of fixing prices, allocating customers or markets, or restricting output would be illegal even if they do not harm competition. If passed, this provision&#8217;s wide scope could make many existing agreements unlawful. Other [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/02/competition-law-update-2003/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

