<?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 Litigation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/competition-law/competition-tribunal-litigation/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>Real Estate Wars: Canada&#8217;s Competition Tribunal Rejects Attack on Toronto Real Estate Board&#8217;s MLS</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/canadas-competition-tribunal-rejects-multiple-listing-service-application-against-toronto-real-estate-board/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=canadas-competition-tribunal-rejects-multiple-listing-service-application-against-toronto-real-estate-board</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/canadas-competition-tribunal-rejects-multiple-listing-service-application-against-toronto-real-estate-board/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:35:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2387</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a much-anticipated decision, the Competition Tribunal rejected the Competition Commissioner&#8217;s application to force The Toronto Real Estate Board (TREB) to relax its rules surrounding how Multiple Listing Service (MLS) information was used by real estate agents. The Tribunal also ordered the Commissioner to pay TREB&#8217;s costs. At issue in the six-week long trial held&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/canadas-competition-tribunal-rejects-multiple-listing-service-application-against-toronto-real-estate-board/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/canadas-competition-tribunal-rejects-multiple-listing-service-application-against-toronto-real-estate-board/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>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>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>Competition Tribunal Cases: A Two Year Review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/07/competition-tribunal-cases-a-two-year-review/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. 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>Online payment company seeks resumption of banking services</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/online-payment-company-seeks-resumption-of-banking-services/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=online-payment-company-seeks-resumption-of-banking-services</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/online-payment-company-seeks-resumption-of-banking-services/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2005 02:26:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=161</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[B-Filer Inc. v. The Bank of Nova Scotia[1] In October 2005, the Tribunal dismissed Scotiabank&#8217;s motion for summary disposition of B-Filer&#8217;s application for leave to commence a private application. The Tribunal disagreed with Scotiabank&#8217;s contention that an Alberta court&#8217;s refusal to grant an injunction made the application res judicata. B-Filer provides an internet payment service&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/online-payment-company-seeks-resumption-of-banking-services/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/online-payment-company-seeks-resumption-of-banking-services/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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>W. Michael G. 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&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/shell-corporation-cannot-bring-application-tribunal-rule/">[...]</a>]]></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>
	</channel>
</rss>
