<?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; Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/competition-law/civil-anti-competitive-conduct/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law,  Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 01:52:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Competition Law Review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/competition-law-review-2013/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-law-review-2013</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/competition-law-review-2013/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:00:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></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[affleck greene mcmurtry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marketing practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open market economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refusal to deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulated conduct defence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement agreement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Review of major Canadian Competition Law developments over the past year, including: Top Stories, Criminal, Class Actions &#038; Private Actions, Mergers, Reviewable Matters, Marketing Practices, Related Developments, The Long Arm of US Antitrust, Across the Pond]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/competition-law-review-2013/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reliance loses bid to end abuse of dominance case</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/reliance-loses-bid-to-end-abuse-of-dominance-case/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=reliance-loses-bid-to-end-abuse-of-dominance-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/reliance-loses-bid-to-end-abuse-of-dominance-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:53:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commissioner of Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reliance Comfort]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2317</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent Competition Tribunal decision was cold comfort for hot water heater supplier Reliance Comfort Limited Partnership. The Tribunal dismissed Reliance’s attack on the Commissioner of Competition’s pleadings. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner need only set out the material facts on which he is relying; not factual or economic evidence. Also, a respondent will&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/reliance-loses-bid-to-end-abuse-of-dominance-case/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/reliance-loses-bid-to-end-abuse-of-dominance-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UCDA and IBC reach settlement</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/ucda-and-ibc-reach-settlement/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ucda-and-ibc-reach-settlement</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/ucda-and-ibc-reach-settlement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:18:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Applications]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2086</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Used Car Dealers Association of Ontario and the Insurance Bureau of Canada have settled UCDA&#8217;s refusal to deal case. UCDA is a trade association representing 4,500 Ontario car dealers. Its Auto Check service provides dealers with information about the accident history of used vehicles. UCDA needs claims data from IBC to offer Auto Check.&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/ucda-and-ibc-reach-settlement/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/ucda-and-ibc-reach-settlement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Abuse of Dominance Guidelines Provide Less Guidance</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/new-abuse-of-dominance-guidelines-provide-less-guidance/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=new-abuse-of-dominance-guidelines-provide-less-guidance</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/new-abuse-of-dominance-guidelines-provide-less-guidance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Sep 2012 03:12:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada Pipe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1722</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau has released the final version of its updated Enforcement Guidelines on Abuse of Dominance. The new Abuse Guidelines are much slimmer than the 2001 guidelines they replace. Gone is the economic approach of the old guidelines. Instead, the 2012 guidelines contain little more than a bare-bones summary of the Competition Act&#8217;s abuse&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/new-abuse-of-dominance-guidelines-provide-less-guidance/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/new-abuse-of-dominance-guidelines-provide-less-guidance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Injunction chickens come home to roost</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/injunction-chickens-come-home-to-roost/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=injunction-chickens-come-home-to-roost</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/injunction-chickens-come-home-to-roost/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:37:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injunctions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Tribunal has the power to order an inquiry into damages arising from an interim order granted by the Tribunal, but can refuse to order damages where special circumstances exist.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/injunction-chickens-come-home-to-roost/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No defined limit on AMPs, court says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/no-defined-limit-on-amps-court-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=no-defined-limit-on-amps-court-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/no-defined-limit-on-amps-court-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 20:19:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal upholding the Ontario Securities Commission power to impose administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs, of up to $1 million suggests that even higher AMPs provided for in the Competition Act would also be upheld. (The case is Rowan v. Ontario Securities Commission. For a summary of this&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/no-defined-limit-on-amps-court-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/no-defined-limit-on-amps-court-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Insurance Bureau must supply data pending hearing</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/insurance-bureau-must-supply-data-pending-hearing/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=insurance-bureau-must-supply-data-pending-hearing</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/insurance-bureau-must-supply-data-pending-hearing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1301</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Insurance Bureau of Canada must continue to supply the Used Car Dealers Association of Ontario with claims data pending the hearing of UCDA&#39;s application for a permanent order that IBC continue to supply this data, the Competition Tribunal ruled on March 16. UCDA is a trade association representing 4,500 Ontario car dealers. Its Auto&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/insurance-bureau-must-supply-data-pending-hearing/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/insurance-bureau-must-supply-data-pending-hearing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The year of the guideline</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/the-year-of-the-guideline/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-year-of-the-guideline</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/the-year-of-the-guideline/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:28:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leniency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=255</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[2007 was the year of the guideline. The Competition Bureau issued six guidelines and bulletins, some in draft, some in final form.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/the-year-of-the-guideline/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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. 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>Dolby complaint silenced</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/06/dolby-complaint-silenced/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. 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>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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. 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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. 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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. 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>Tribunal restores Sherbrooke store to Rona</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/07/tribunal-restores-sherbrooke-store-to-rona/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=tribunal-restores-sherbrooke-store-to-rona</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/07/tribunal-restores-sherbrooke-store-to-rona/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:00:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Applications]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=337</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On May 30, the Competition Tribunal ruled that home improvement retailer Rona Inc. can keep a store it had agreed to sell in order to gain Competition Bureau approval of its acquisition of competitor R&#233;no-D&#233;pot in 2003, because of a &#8220;change in circumstances&#8221;.[1] Rona&#8217;s application was under s. 106 of the Competition Act, a provision&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/07/tribunal-restores-sherbrooke-store-to-rona/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/07/tribunal-restores-sherbrooke-store-to-rona/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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. 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>
	</channel>
</rss>
