<?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; Criminal Matters</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/competition-law/criminal-matters/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>Japanese auto-parts maker to pay record $30 million fine for bid-rigging</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/japanese-auto-parts-maker-to-pay-record-30-million-fine-for-bid-rigging/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=japanese-auto-parts-maker-to-pay-record-30-million-fine-for-bid-rigging</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/japanese-auto-parts-maker-to-pay-record-30-million-fine-for-bid-rigging/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:16:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2442</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yazaki Corporation was fined $30 million after pleading guilty to rigging bids for wire harnesses supplied to Honda and Toyota for the 2005.5 Honda Ridgeline, 2006 Honda Civic and 2006 Toyota Corolla/Matrix models. The volume of commerce affected in Canada was about US $260 million. This is the largest fine ever to be ordered for bid-rigging&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/japanese-auto-parts-maker-to-pay-record-30-million-fine-for-bid-rigging/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/japanese-auto-parts-maker-to-pay-record-30-million-fine-for-bid-rigging/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Record $5 million bid rigging fine for auto parts maker</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/record-5-million-bid-rigging-fine-for-auto-parts-maker/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=record-5-million-bid-rigging-fine-for-auto-parts-maker</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/record-5-million-bid-rigging-fine-for-auto-parts-maker/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:06:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2366</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently ordered Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd., a Japanese supplier of motor vehicle components, to pay a fine of $5 million after it pleaded guilty to participating in an international bid-rigging conspiracy. To date, this is the largest fine a court has imposed in Canada for a bid-rigging offence under&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/record-5-million-bid-rigging-fine-for-auto-parts-maker/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/record-5-million-bid-rigging-fine-for-auto-parts-maker/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guilty pleas continue in gasoline price-fixing conspiracy</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/guilty-pleas-continue-in-gasoline-price-fixing-conspiracy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=guilty-pleas-continue-in-gasoline-price-fixing-conspiracy</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/guilty-pleas-continue-in-gasoline-price-fixing-conspiracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:04:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2349</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two individuals have pleaded guilty to fixing the price of gasoline in Sherbrooke, Quebec. The Quebec Superior Court sentenced them to pay $8,000 in fines. To date, 33 individuals and seven companies have pleaded guilty or were found guilty of gas price-fixing. Fines in excess of $3 million have been levied and sentences to be served&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/guilty-pleas-continue-in-gasoline-price-fixing-conspiracy/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/guilty-pleas-continue-in-gasoline-price-fixing-conspiracy/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>Guilty Pleas Continue in Quebec Gas Price-Fixing Conspiracy</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/guilty-pleas-continue-in-quebec-gas-price-fixing-conspiracy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=guilty-pleas-continue-in-quebec-gas-price-fixing-conspiracy</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/guilty-pleas-continue-in-quebec-gas-price-fixing-conspiracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 20:38:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1938</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An individual retailer operating under the Petro-Canada banner has pleaded guilty to fixing the price of gasoline in Sherbrooke, Quebec, the Competition Bureau announced on December 28, 2012. The retailer was sentenced to a fine of $5,000. To date, 28 individuals and 7 companies have pleaded guilty. Fines in excess of $3 million have been&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/guilty-pleas-continue-in-quebec-gas-price-fixing-conspiracy/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/guilty-pleas-continue-in-quebec-gas-price-fixing-conspiracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More charges come down the sewer pipe</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/more-charges-come-down-the-sewer-pipe/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=more-charges-come-down-the-sewer-pipe</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/more-charges-come-down-the-sewer-pipe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:27:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1925</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau has announced an additional 23 criminal charges against Kelly Sani-Vac Inc., its vice-president, and the former president of Chalifoux Sani Laurentides Inc., for bid-rigging municipal sewer services contracts in Montreal. The charges in question relate to 15 calls for tender between September 2009 and September 2011. The approximate value for the sewer&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/more-charges-come-down-the-sewer-pipe/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/more-charges-come-down-the-sewer-pipe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Computer Files in Plain View: A Common Sense Approach</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/computer-files-in-plain-view-a-common-sense-approach/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=computer-files-in-plain-view-a-common-sense-approach</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/computer-files-in-plain-view-a-common-sense-approach/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:07:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michelle E. Booth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer searches]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exploratory search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[handling evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plain view doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[r v jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unrelated crime]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1731</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeal, in R. v. Jones,  has provided some clarity and guidance with respect to the permissible scope of the search of a computer which is seized under a valid search warrant, where such a warrant is authorized for the search of evidence in an unrelated crime.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/computer-files-in-plain-view-a-common-sense-approach/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Charges Stayed After Crown Breaks Deal in Gas Conspiracy Case</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-stayed-after-crown-breaks-deal-in-gas-conspiracy-case/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=charges-stayed-after-crown-breaks-deal-in-gas-conspiracy-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-stayed-after-crown-breaks-deal-in-gas-conspiracy-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2012 02:13:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gasoline]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Quebec gas retailer and convenience store operator Couche-Tard Inc. escaped price fixing charges after a Quebec Superior Court judge found that the Crown&#8217;s repudiation of a settlement agreement irreparably prejudiced the fairness of the proceeding. In 2008, Alimentation Couche-Tard was charged with fixing retail gasoline prices in Sherbrooke, Magog, Victoriaville, and Thetford Mines, Quebec. On&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-stayed-after-crown-breaks-deal-in-gas-conspiracy-case/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-stayed-after-crown-breaks-deal-in-gas-conspiracy-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Waste Services Companies Trashed Consent Agreement, Bureau says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/waste-services-companies-trashed-consent-agreement-bureau-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=waste-services-companies-trashed-consent-agreement-bureau-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/waste-services-companies-trashed-consent-agreement-bureau-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:58:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1630</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau has charged two waste companies, Progressive Waste Solutions Ltd. and its subsidiary, BFI Canada Inc., with violating several terms of a consent agreement they entered into with the Bureau in June 2010. The June 2010 consent agreement resolved the Bureau&#8217;s concerns that a merger between IESI-BFC Ltd. and Waste Services Inc. (now&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/waste-services-companies-trashed-consent-agreement-bureau-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/waste-services-companies-trashed-consent-agreement-bureau-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Charges laid for Online Business Directory Schemers</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-laid-for-online-business-directory-schemers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=charges-laid-for-online-business-directory-schemers</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-laid-for-online-business-directory-schemers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:32:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brigid Wilkinson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1622</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On September 4, 2012, four companies and individuals are scheduled to appear in the Quebec Provincial Court following charges laid for deceptive telemarketing activities.  After a Competition Bureau investigation, criminal charges were laid against Solutions Executives Inc., Corporation Oxford-Data Inc., Sapphire Media Group and Platinum Direct Resources for violations of the Competition Act and the&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-laid-for-online-business-directory-schemers/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/charges-laid-for-online-business-directory-schemers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More gas price fixing guilty pleas</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/more-gas-price-fixing-guilty-pleas/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=more-gas-price-fixing-guilty-pleas</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/more-gas-price-fixing-guilty-pleas/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:49:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gasoline price fixing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1329</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two gasoline retailers and five individuals have pleaded guilty to fixing the price of gasoline in Belleville, Ontario, and Victoriaville, Quebec, the Competition Bureau announced today. Suncor Energy Products Inc. (Sunoco) pleaded guilty to fixing the price of gas in Belleville, Ontario, from May to November 2007, and was sentenced to a fine of $500,000.&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/more-gas-price-fixing-guilty-pleas/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/more-gas-price-fixing-guilty-pleas/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gas retailers fined $2 million for price fixing</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/gas-retailers-fined-2-million-for-price-fixing/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=gas-retailers-fined-2-million-for-price-fixing</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/gas-retailers-fined-2-million-for-price-fixing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:18:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1295</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Canadian Tire Corporation, Mr. Gas, and Pioneer&#160;Energy&#160;LP pleaded guilty to fixing the retail price of gasoline in Kingston and Brockville from May to November&#160;2007. They were fined a total of $2 million. See the Competition Bureau press release.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/gas-retailers-fined-2-million-for-price-fixing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/competition-law-review-2011/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-law-review-2011</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/competition-law-review-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:54:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1259</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Review of major Canadian Competition Law developments over the past year, including: Criminal, Reviewable Matters, Mergers, Marketing Practices, Private Enforcement, The Long Arm of US Antitrust, Across the Pond

<b>Top Stories</b>
<ul><li>Can indirect purchasers sue for price-fixing losses?</li>
<li>Bureau reverses the charges on hidden fees</li>
<li>Court throws the book at Yellow Page business directory scam</li>
</ul>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/competition-law-review-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Discoverability, continuing effects, and Competition Act limitation periods</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:55:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal left open the possibility that the discoverability principle may apply to the two-year limitation period established for private actions under section 36 of the Competition Act, but confirmed that the effects of a conspiracy are not a part of the offence and thus do not extend&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/discoverability-continuing-effects-and-competition-act-limitation-periods/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law suit alleging defamation by Competition Bureau allowed to proceed</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/law-suit-alleging-defamation-by-competition-bureau-allowed-to-proceed/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=law-suit-alleging-defamation-by-competition-bureau-allowed-to-proceed</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/law-suit-alleging-defamation-by-competition-bureau-allowed-to-proceed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:41:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attacks on Reputation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ontario&#39;s top court recently allowed parts of a claim that the Competition Bureau defamed suspects when it an announced bid-rigging charges against them to proceed to trial. In February 2009, the Bureau announced that criminal bid-rigging charges had been laid against 14 individuals and seven companies accusing them of rigging bids for federal government contracts.&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/law-suit-alleging-defamation-by-competition-bureau-allowed-to-proceed/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/law-suit-alleging-defamation-by-competition-bureau-allowed-to-proceed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New conspiracy provision of the Competition Act in action</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/01/new-conspiracy-provision-of-the-competition-act-in-action/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=new-conspiracy-provision-of-the-competition-act-in-action</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/01/new-conspiracy-provision-of-the-competition-act-in-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:50:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brigid Wilkinson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau garnered its first conviction under the amended conspiracy provision of the Competition Act yesterday, as Domfoam International Inc. and Valle Foam Industries (1995) Inc. plead guilty to conspiracy and were fined $12.5 million. The investigation into the price-fixing of polyurethane foam has been ongoing since February 2010 and received cooperation through both&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/01/new-conspiracy-provision-of-the-competition-act-in-action/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/01/new-conspiracy-provision-of-the-competition-act-in-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Quebec court raps plaintiffs’ knuckles</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/quebec-court-raps-plaintiffs-knuckles/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=quebec-court-raps-plaintiffs-knuckles</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/quebec-court-raps-plaintiffs-knuckles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:08:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Quebec Superior Court recently granted an unusually strict protective order to defendants in a class action to prevent evidence from the class action finding its way into parallel criminal proceedings against them. The defendants are a group of gas station owners (both corporations and individuals) who have been charged with conspiring to fix retail&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/quebec-court-raps-plaintiffs-knuckles/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/quebec-court-raps-plaintiffs-knuckles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Joint Venture Decision Criminal, Alberta Court Says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/11/joint-venture-decision-criminal-alberta-court-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=joint-venture-decision-criminal-alberta-court-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/11/joint-venture-decision-criminal-alberta-court-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:15:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joint venture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1009</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alberta court has held that a decision by joint operators of an oil field to sole source a contract constituted a conspiracy contrary to section 45 of the Competition Act, a criminal offence, and awarded damages to the company that lost out on the business.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/11/joint-venture-decision-criminal-alberta-court-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Long Arm of US Law Grabs Canadian Executive</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/09/canadian-executive-usa-law/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=canadian-executive-usa-law</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/09/canadian-executive-usa-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:25:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kick-backs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[money laundering]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=981</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Doing business in the US can be very lucrative. But Canadian (and other foreign) companies and their executives that engage in corrupt practices there can expect to face serious penalties there.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/09/canadian-executive-usa-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Antitrust Division&#8217;s conduct in revoking immunity &#8220;fundamentally unfair&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/antitrust-divisions-conduct-in-revoking-immunity-fundamentally-unfair/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=antitrust-divisions-conduct-in-revoking-immunity-fundamentally-unfair</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/antitrust-divisions-conduct-in-revoking-immunity-fundamentally-unfair/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:28:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leniency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stolt-Nielsen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=354</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The US Department of Justice, Antitrust Division has lost its fight to evict Stolt-Nielsen S.A. from its immunity program.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/antitrust-divisions-conduct-in-revoking-immunity-fundamentally-unfair/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is free software criminal?</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/01/is-free-software-criminal/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=is-free-software-criminal</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/01/is-free-software-criminal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:03:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act; competition law; antitrust law; predatory pricing; recoupment; conspiracy; software licensing; open source]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=253</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The open source movement has led to the development of many useful applications, including the popular browser Firefox and the operating system Linux. But is it against the law to give software away for free? In a recent case, a US court said that open source software does not violate US antitrust laws.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/01/is-free-software-criminal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Restitution or windfall?</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/restitution-or-windfall/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=restitution-or-windfall</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/restitution-or-windfall/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constructive trust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Equitable remedies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver of Tort]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=348</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Can consumers who obtain a defective product for free recover profits earned by the manufacturer, even though those consumers suffer no damages whatsoever? Most non-lawyers would likely say:  no. However, the Ontario Divisional Court recently affirmed a decision certifying a class action against Johnson &#038; Johnson that raises this question.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/restitution-or-windfall/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Joint venturers not liable for price fixing</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/joint-venturers-not-liable-for-price-fixing/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=joint-venturers-not-liable-for-price-fixing</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/joint-venturers-not-liable-for-price-fixing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:06:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-competitive conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joint ventures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lessening of competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restraint of trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule of reason]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=280</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is not per se illegal for a lawful, economically integrated joint venture to set prices at which the joint venture sells products, the US Supreme Court held in a February 28, 2006 , decision.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/joint-venturers-not-liable-for-price-fixing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Bureau obtains record fine for domestic paper conspiracy</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/01/competition-bureau-obtains-record-fine-for-domestic-paper-conspiracy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-bureau-obtains-record-fine-for-domestic-paper-conspiracy</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/01/competition-bureau-obtains-record-fine-for-domestic-paper-conspiracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:37:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbonless paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbonless sheets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=245</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 9, 2006, fine paper distributors Cascades Fine Papers Group Inc., Domtar Inc. and Unisource Canada each pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy and were fined $12.5 million each, for a total of $37.5 million, for conspiring to fix the price for carbonless sheets.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/01/competition-bureau-obtains-record-fine-for-domestic-paper-conspiracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Withdrawing a bid not “bid-rigging”, court finds</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/withdrawing-a-bid-not-%e2%80%9cbid-rigging%e2%80%9d-court-finds/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=withdrawing-a-bid-not-%25e2%2580%259cbid-rigging%25e2%2580%259d-court-finds</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/withdrawing-a-bid-not-%e2%80%9cbid-rigging%e2%80%9d-court-finds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:05:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aluminum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[city of toronto]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prohibition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 47]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=342</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In R. v. Rowe[1], the Ontario Superior Court found that the offence of bid-rigging, in s. 47 of the Competition Act does not include withdrawing a bid or tender. Two companies submitted identical bids to supply chlorine to the City of Toronto. One company subsequently withdrew its bid. The Crown alleged that the two had&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/withdrawing-a-bid-not-%e2%80%9cbid-rigging%e2%80%9d-court-finds/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/withdrawing-a-bid-not-%e2%80%9cbid-rigging%e2%80%9d-court-finds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
