<?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 Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/competition-law/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>Metal merger not anti-competitive, Bureau says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/05/metal-merger-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=metal-merger-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/05/metal-merger-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 01:52:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Samuel, Son &#38; Co. Limited can complete its acquisition of Wilkinson Steel and Metals Inc. after the Competition Bureau announced that it does not intend to challenge the deal. Samuel and Wilkinson process, distribute and sell various steel and speciality metals. Samuel operates service centres across Canada and Wilkinson conducts business in Western Canada. The&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/05/metal-merger-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/05/metal-merger-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>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>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>Leon’s acquisition of The Brick not anti-competitive, Bureau says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/leons-acquisition-of-the-brick-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=leons-acquisition-of-the-brick-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/leons-acquisition-of-the-brick-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:07:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau announced that it does not intend to challenge the acquisition of The Brick Ltd. by Leon’s Furniture Limited. The Bureau’s investigation revealed that while both parties are incredibly close rivals, particularly in the retailing of furniture and mattresses, the transaction was unlikely to substantially lessen or prevent competition since effective national and regional&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/leons-acquisition-of-the-brick-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/leons-acquisition-of-the-brick-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/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>LifeLabs BC&#8217;s proposed acquisition of BC Biomedical not anti-competitive, Bureau says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/lifelabs-bcs-proposed-acquisition-of-bc-biomedical-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=lifelabs-bcs-proposed-acquisition-of-bc-biomedical-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/lifelabs-bcs-proposed-acquisition-of-bc-biomedical-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:18:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bc biomedical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bc medical services commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lifelabs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2324</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau announced that it does not intend to challenge LifeLabs BC LP&#8217;s acquisition of BC Biomedical Laboratories Ltd. LifeLabs and BC Biomedical are community-based facilities that provide diagnostic testing services to patients, including specimen collection and lab testing outside of hospitals. Both LifeLabs and BC Biomedical provide services in the Lower Mainland of British&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/lifelabs-bcs-proposed-acquisition-of-bc-biomedical-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/lifelabs-bcs-proposed-acquisition-of-bc-biomedical-not-anti-competitive-bureau-says/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>Bell agrees to sell channels to gain Bureau approval of Astral takeover</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bell-agrees-to-sell-channels-to-gain-bureau-approval-of-astral-takeover/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bell-agrees-to-sell-channels-to-gain-bureau-approval-of-astral-takeover</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bell-agrees-to-sell-channels-to-gain-bureau-approval-of-astral-takeover/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:26:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2293</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau has reached an agreement with BCE Inc. (Bell), in relation to its proposed acquisition of Astral Media Inc. Bell agreed to divest itself of Astral’s ownership of several specialty channels, including, The Family Channel, Teletoon, and The Cartoon Network. Bell must also refrain from imposing bundling requirements on providers who want to&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bell-agrees-to-sell-channels-to-gain-bureau-approval-of-astral-takeover/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bell-agrees-to-sell-channels-to-gain-bureau-approval-of-astral-takeover/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bureau clears National Oilwell Varco’s acquisition of Robbins &amp; Myers</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bureau-clears-national-oilwell-varcos-acquisition-of-robbins-myers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bureau-clears-national-oilwell-varcos-acquisition-of-robbins-myers</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bureau-clears-national-oilwell-varcos-acquisition-of-robbins-myers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2013 03:28:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2280</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau announced that it does not intend to challenge National Oilwell Varco’s acquisition of Robbins &#38; Myers. National and R&#38;M provide products, including motor components and blowout preventers, and other services in the oil, gas and extraction industry. The Bureau’s preliminary review focused on National and R&#38;M’s competitors in various product categories. The Bureau&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bureau-clears-national-oilwell-varcos-acquisition-of-robbins-myers/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/bureau-clears-national-oilwell-varcos-acquisition-of-robbins-myers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Landfill divestiture order upheld</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/landfill-divestiture-order-upheld/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=landfill-divestiture-order-upheld</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/landfill-divestiture-order-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:22:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2267</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tervita (formerly CCS Corporation) has lost its appeal from the Competition Tribunal&#8217;s decision that its acquisition of the Babkirk hazardous waste site would lead to a substantial prevention in the market for the disposal of hazardous waste in Northeastern British Columbia. The Federal Court of Appeal&#8217;s decision was announced by the Bureau on February 11,&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/landfill-divestiture-order-upheld/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/landfill-divestiture-order-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Acquisition of retail hardware company cleared</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/acquisition-of-retail-hardware-company-cleared/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=acquisition-of-retail-hardware-company-cleared</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/acquisition-of-retail-hardware-company-cleared/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:54:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2230</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau announced that it does not intend to challenge the proposed acquisition of Paulin and Co. by The Hillman Companies Inc., both of which are suppliers of retail hardware to retail stores in Canada. Retail hardware products include fasteners, such as nuts, bolts, and other related accessories. The Bureau reviewed the transaction and concluded&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/acquisition-of-retail-hardware-company-cleared/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/acquisition-of-retail-hardware-company-cleared/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Yellow Page&#8217; Business Directory Scam Fine Upheld</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/yellow-page-business-directory-scam-fine-upheld/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=yellow-page-business-directory-scam-fine-upheld</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/yellow-page-business-directory-scam-fine-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:57:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2212</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In early 2012, four closely related companies and individuals associated with those companies  operated a  ‘yellow page’ business directory scam and were ordered to pay administrative monetary penalties over $8 million. The Court of Appeal recently heard an appeal by one of those individuals who claimed he was deprived of a fair hearing due to the application&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/yellow-page-business-directory-scam-fine-upheld/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/yellow-page-business-directory-scam-fine-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Consent agreement resolves landfill acquisition concerns</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/consent-agreement-resolves-landfill-acquisition-concerns/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=consent-agreement-resolves-landfill-acquisition-concerns</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/consent-agreement-resolves-landfill-acquisition-concerns/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:54:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2218</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau has reached a consent agreement with WM Québec Inc, a subsidiary of Waste Management Inc., regarding its proposed acquisition of the assets of RCI Environment Inc. Both companies provide solid non-hazardous waste collection services in parts of Western Québec. The consent agreement resolves the Bureau’s concerns that the acquisition would substantially lessen or&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/consent-agreement-resolves-landfill-acquisition-concerns/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/consent-agreement-resolves-landfill-acquisition-concerns/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bureau clears RBC&#8217;s acquisition of Ally Canada</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-clears-rbcs-acquisition-of-ally-canada/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bureau-clears-rbcs-acquisition-of-ally-canada</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-clears-rbcs-acquisition-of-ally-canada/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:51:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2222</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bureau will not challenge Royal Bank of Canada’s acquisition of Ally Credit Canada Limited, ResMor Trust Company, and certain Canadian affiliates. The transaction involves Ally Canada’s business in consumer and commercial automobile financing and personal banking. The Bureau’s review focused on various product markets including, indirect consumer automobile financing; subvention financing; floor plan financing;&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-clears-rbcs-acquisition-of-ally-canada/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-clears-rbcs-acquisition-of-ally-canada/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bureau to use compulsory evidence gathering powers first, Pecman says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-to-use-compulsory-evidence-gathering-powers-first-pecman-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bureau-to-use-compulsory-evidence-gathering-powers-first-pecman-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-to-use-compulsory-evidence-gathering-powers-first-pecman-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:20:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau&#8217;s first course of action will be to seek legally binding section 11 orders for production of documents from targets of civil inquiries (other than mergers), instead of relying on voluntary production, interim Competition Commissioner John Pecman announced in a recent speech. Section 11 of the Competition Act allows the Bureau to seek&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-to-use-compulsory-evidence-gathering-powers-first-pecman-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/02/bureau-to-use-compulsory-evidence-gathering-powers-first-pecman-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Win For Ford Nation: Court Finds City Had No Authority To Impose Financial Penalty</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/win-for-ford-nation-court-finds-city-had-no-authority-to-impose-financial-penalty/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=win-for-ford-nation-court-finds-city-had-no-authority-to-impose-financial-penalty</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/win-for-ford-nation-court-finds-city-had-no-authority-to-impose-financial-penalty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:42:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals and Judicial Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political & Elections Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2115</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ontario Divisional Court set aside the decision of the Superior Court of Justice that removed Toronto Mayor Rob Ford from office for allegedly breaching the provincial Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. The Act bars all municipal politicians from speaking, voting, or participating in any way in matters in which they had a “pecuniary interest,”&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/win-for-ford-nation-court-finds-city-had-no-authority-to-impose-financial-penalty/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/win-for-ford-nation-court-finds-city-had-no-authority-to-impose-financial-penalty/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>Tim Hortons Franchisees Must Be Content With Profits from Coffee, Not Food</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:15:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</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[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Franchises]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2014</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tim Hortons franchisees have lost their challenge to Tim Hortons&#8217; &#8220;Always Fresh&#8221; model that allegedly reduced the profitability of donuts, TimBits, and other food items. In Fairview Donut Inc. v. The TDL Group Corp., the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lengthy lower court decision that on the one hand certified a class action against&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pre-merger notification threshold increased to $80 million</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/pre-merger-notification-threshold-increased-to-80-million/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=pre-merger-notification-threshold-increased-to-80-million</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/pre-merger-notification-threshold-increased-to-80-million/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:34:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau announced on February 8, 2013, that the pre-merger notification size threshold will increase to $80 million, effective January 12, 2013. The party size threshold remains set at $400 million. Generally, the Bureau must be notified of a proposed merger before closing where: 1.The transaction relates to an operating business in Canada; 2.The&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/pre-merger-notification-threshold-increased-to-80-million/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/pre-merger-notification-threshold-increased-to-80-million/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thanks for the memory: DRAM defendants to pay $29m</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/thanks-for-the-memory-dram-defendants-to-pay-29m/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=thanks-for-the-memory-dram-defendants-to-pay-29m</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/thanks-for-the-memory-dram-defendants-to-pay-29m/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 20:17:39 +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[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1974</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Five groups of defendants in the DRAM class action have agreed to pay over $29 million to settle allegations that they fixed prices for DRAM memory chips. DRAM, which stands for dynamic random access memory, is a type of memory chip used in computers and other electronics. The plaintiffs claim that certain manufacturers and distributors&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/thanks-for-the-memory-dram-defendants-to-pay-29m/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/thanks-for-the-memory-dram-defendants-to-pay-29m/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lights, camera, no action: Bureau clears film distribution deal</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/lights-camera-no-action-bureau-clears-film-distribution-deal/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=lights-camera-no-action-bureau-clears-film-distribution-deal</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/lights-camera-no-action-bureau-clears-film-distribution-deal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 22:02:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1948</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Entertainment One Ltd. can wrap up its acquisition of Alliance Films Holdings Inc. after the Competition Bureau issued a &#8220;no action letter&#8221; on January 3, 2012, indicating that the Commissioner of Competition does not intend to challenge the deal. Both eOne and Alliance are major competitors for the distribution of films in Canada with substantial&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/lights-camera-no-action-bureau-clears-film-distribution-deal/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/lights-camera-no-action-bureau-clears-film-distribution-deal/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>Mobile wars heat up: Telus denied injunction against Mobilicity</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/mobile-wars-heat-up-telus-denied-injunction-against-mobilicity/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mobile-wars-heat-up-telus-denied-injunction-against-mobilicity</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/mobile-wars-heat-up-telus-denied-injunction-against-mobilicity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 23:04:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mobilicity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rogers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s deja vu all over again in the mobile telephony industry. On Wednesday, December 19, 2012, The British Columbia Supreme Court denied an application by Telus for an injunction restraining Mobilicity from running television commercials that compare its pricing plans with those of unnamed competitors. Grauer J. held that Telus&#8217; case, at best, &#8220;limps across&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/mobile-wars-heat-up-telus-denied-injunction-against-mobilicity/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/mobile-wars-heat-up-telus-denied-injunction-against-mobilicity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Merged pork processors unlikely to hog market, Bureau rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/merged-pork-processors-unlikely-to-hog-market-bureau-rules/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=merged-pork-processors-unlikely-to-hog-market-bureau-rules</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/merged-pork-processors-unlikely-to-hog-market-bureau-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:27:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1913</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Acquisitions of two ailing pork producers by large meat processors will not be challenged, the Competition Bureau announced on December 17, 2012. Meat processor Olymel L.P. is buying Western Canada’s largest hog producer, Big Sky Farms Inc., and Maple Leaf Foods is buying Western Canada second largest hog producer, Puratone Corporation. Big Sky is currently&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/merged-pork-processors-unlikely-to-hog-market-bureau-rules/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/merged-pork-processors-unlikely-to-hog-market-bureau-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CRTC cannot make cablecos pay for local TV signals, SCC says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 03:17:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CRTC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cable and satellite television companies won an important victory when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on December 13, 2012, that the CRTC has no jurisdiction to force them to pay to redistribute local television broadcasts to their audiences. This decision may herald a trend to confining subordinate bodies like the CRTC more narrowly to&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Bureau clears electrical distributors merger</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/competition-bureau-clears-electrical-distributors-merger/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-bureau-clears-electrical-distributors-merger</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/competition-bureau-clears-electrical-distributors-merger/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:48:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1886</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau will not challenge the merger of two major distributors of electrical products, WESCO Distribution Inc. and EECOL Electric Corp., it announced on December 7, 2012. The Bureau found that the two distributors compete to sell low voltage electrical components in 17 local markets in Western Canada. The Bureau also found that geographic&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/competition-bureau-clears-electrical-distributors-merger/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/competition-bureau-clears-electrical-distributors-merger/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AGM &#8211; there&#8217;s an App for that.</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/agm-theres-an-app-for-that/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=agm-theres-an-app-for-that</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/agm-theres-an-app-for-that/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:49:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Wayne Powell (Webmaster)</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blackberry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blackberry app world]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal app]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[smartphones]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1865</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://appworld.blackberry.com/webstore/content/19967634/?lang=en" target="_blank"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-1868" alt="Get the AGM thelitigator.ca Blackberry App" src="http://www.thelitigator.ca/litigator/wp-content/uploads/bbappworld_getitat_english_black-300x131.jpg" width="150" /></a>Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP unveils a Blackberry App for the recent redesign of the Litigator website, thelitigator.ca]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/agm-theres-an-app-for-that/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BC man extradited to US to face deceptive telemarketing charges</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/bc-man-extradited-to-us-to-face-deceptive-telemarketing-charges/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bc-man-extradited-to-us-to-face-deceptive-telemarketing-charges</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/bc-man-extradited-to-us-to-face-deceptive-telemarketing-charges/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2012 14:05:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1845</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[William Robertson must face charges in the United States that he was involved in a telemarketing scheme targeting elderly people in the US, a BC judge ordered recently. A joint FBI-RCMP investigation found evidence that employees at a Vancouver boiler room would tell victims they had won large sums of money, but had to pay&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/bc-man-extradited-to-us-to-face-deceptive-telemarketing-charges/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/bc-man-extradited-to-us-to-face-deceptive-telemarketing-charges/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fraud and telemarketing charges laid against five individuals</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/fraud-and-telemarketing-charges-laid-against-five-individuals/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fraud-and-telemarketing-charges-laid-against-five-individuals</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/fraud-and-telemarketing-charges-laid-against-five-individuals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2012 14:04:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1848</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau announced on December 7 that fraud charges under the Criminal Code, and misleading advertising and deceptive telemarketing charges under the Competition Act have been laid against five individuals in connection with two Montreal telemarketing operations. One of the operations promoted government grants to American citizens. The other promoted the sale of office&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/fraud-and-telemarketing-charges-laid-against-five-individuals/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/fraud-and-telemarketing-charges-laid-against-five-individuals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Building trust, enhancing relationships top priority, says Competition Commissioner</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/building-trust-enhancing-relationships-top-priority-says-competition-commissioner/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=building-trust-enhancing-relationships-top-priority-says-competition-commissioner</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/building-trust-enhancing-relationships-top-priority-says-competition-commissioner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2012 03:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1852</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John Pecman, Canada&#8217;s new Interim Commissioner of Competition, signaled a shift towards a more collaborative approach to enforcement in a recent speech. Noting the &#8220;fundamentally important role the Bureau plays&#8221; in ensuring a &#8220;prosperous, growing, Canadian economy&#8221;, Mr. Pecman elaborated three priority areas: Benefiting Canadians, through focused enforcement and through strategic regulatory interventions; Applying Canada&#8217;s&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/building-trust-enhancing-relationships-top-priority-says-competition-commissioner/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/building-trust-enhancing-relationships-top-priority-says-competition-commissioner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Cautionary Tale in Comparative Advertising</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:11:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1814</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[National Energy Corporation was recently ordered by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to stop distributing a comparative advertising brochure which contained false and misleading statements about the services and products of its competitor, Direct Energy Marketing Limited. National Energy&#8217;s brochure misled consumers by overstating the price increases Direct Energy had imposed on its customers&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Consumers’ power to be tested as Supreme Court set to hear appeals on price fixing</title>
		<link>http://business.financialpost.com/2012/10/16/consumers-power-to-be-tested-as-supreme-court-set-to-hear-appeals-on-price-fixing/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=consumers-power-to-be-tested-as-supreme-court-set-to-hear-appeals-on-price-fixing</link>
		<comments>http://business.financialpost.com/2012/10/16/consumers-power-to-be-tested-as-supreme-court-set-to-hear-appeals-on-price-fixing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:05:30 +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[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1782</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["The cases are important because they will determine whether or not consumers can recover for losses caused by price-fixing several levels ahead of them in the distribution chain," said Michael Osborne, a Toronto-based litigator at Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.financialpost.com/2012/10/16/consumers-power-to-be-tested-as-supreme-court-set-to-hear-appeals-on-price-fixing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Irving Oil Accused of Fixing Gas Prices</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/irving-oil-accused-of-fixing-gas-prices/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=irving-oil-accused-of-fixing-gas-prices</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/irving-oil-accused-of-fixing-gas-prices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:38:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gasoline price fixing; Irving Oil;]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1759</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Criminal charges have been laid against Irving Oil and its Quebec manager, alleging that they fixed the price of gasoline in Victoriaville, Thetford Mines and Sherbrooke, Quebec. The charges are part of the Competition Bureau’s ongoing investigation into gas price-fixing in certain Quebec communities. To date, 39 individuals and 15 companies have been charged. Twenty-seven individuals&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/irving-oil-accused-of-fixing-gas-prices/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/irving-oil-accused-of-fixing-gas-prices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Micron settles SRAM price-fixing allegations</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:30:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IBM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samsung]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SRAM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Micron has agreed to pay $300,000 to settle a class proceeding alleging that it participated in a conspiracy to fix prices for Static Random Access Memory (SRAM). SRAM is a type of memory used in computers, cellular phones, and game consoles. Micron also agreed to cooperate with the plaintiffs in the ongoing proceedings in British&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/micron-settles-sram-price-fixing-allegations/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>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>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 guilty pleas from Sewer Bid-Riggers</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/more-guilty-pleas-from-sewer-bid-riggers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=more-guilty-pleas-from-sewer-bid-riggers</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/more-guilty-pleas-from-sewer-bid-riggers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:31:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brigid Wilkinson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1620</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau has garnered yet another guilty plea in its clean-up of the Montreal sewer bid-rigging conspiracy. Canalisation Nord Américaine Ltée pleaded guilty in the Quebec Superior Court last Friday and will pay a $15,000 fine.  They were charged on November 22, 2011, with 3 counts of bid-rigging, in relation to contracts worth approximately&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/more-guilty-pleas-from-sewer-bid-riggers/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/more-guilty-pleas-from-sewer-bid-riggers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real estate consulting firm guilty of bid rigging</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/real-estate-consulting-firm-guilty-of-bid-rigging/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=real-estate-consulting-firm-guilty-of-bid-rigging</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/real-estate-consulting-firm-guilty-of-bid-rigging/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:55:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Yonatan Lipetz, Summer Student</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1608</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau’s prosecution of the real estate advisory bid-rigging conspiracy for federal contracts continued with the announcement on July 30 that Corporate Research Group (CRG), pleaded guilty. CRG collaborated with Louis Facchini – who was carrying on business as First Porter Consultancy – in submitting bids in response to the request for standing offers&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/real-estate-consulting-firm-guilty-of-bid-rigging/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/real-estate-consulting-firm-guilty-of-bid-rigging/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Osborne on The Maple Monopoly in FP Comment</title>
		<link>http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/08/01/the-maple-monopoly/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=osborne-on-the-maple-monopoly-in-fp-comment</link>
		<comments>http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/08/01/the-maple-monopoly/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:18:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1601</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With Wednesday’s announcement that 91% of TMX Group Inc.’s shareholders have tendered their shares to Maple Group Acquisition Corp., Canada is only weeks away from a stock exchange monopoly.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/08/01/the-maple-monopoly/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michael Osborne to argue indirect purchaser case at mock hearing</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/michael-osborne-to-argue-indirect-purchase-case-at-mock-hearing/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=michael-osborne-to-argue-indirect-purchase-case-at-mock-hearing</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/michael-osborne-to-argue-indirect-purchase-case-at-mock-hearing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:25:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canadian Bar Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indirect purchaser]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1575</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michael Osborne will participate in a mock argument on the indirect purchaser cases to be heard by the Supreme Court this fall at the Canadian Bar Association’s National Competition Section’s fall conference to be held in Ottawa on September 20 and 21.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/michael-osborne-to-argue-indirect-purchase-case-at-mock-hearing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Loss Stops Here</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/the-loss-stops-here/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-loss-stops-here</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/the-loss-stops-here/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:53:47 +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[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canfor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chadha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kingstreet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[passing-on]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sun-Rype]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1561</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers of a product that was the subject of a price fixing conspiracy cannot sue to recover losses passed on to them by direct purchasers, the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled in two landmark decisions issued recently. These decisions are now being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The US Supreme Court&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/the-loss-stops-here/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/the-loss-stops-here/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Aircraft part maker merger cleared</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/aircraft-part-maker-merger-cleared/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=aircraft-part-maker-merger-cleared</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/aircraft-part-maker-merger-cleared/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 04:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1558</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau announced on July 26, 2012, that it would allow United Technology Corporation to buy Goodrich Corporation. Both UTC and Goodrich make parts for aircraft, and the Bureau&#8217;s analysis found that overlap between the two companies would lessen competition in markets for electrical generators and engine controls. However, UTC and Goodrich agreed with&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/aircraft-part-maker-merger-cleared/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/aircraft-part-maker-merger-cleared/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BC Court Slams Door on Waiver of Tort for Breach of Statute</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/bc-court-slams-door-on-waiver-of-tort-for-breach-of-statute/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bc-court-slams-door-on-waiver-of-tort-for-breach-of-statute</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/bc-court-slams-door-on-waiver-of-tort-for-breach-of-statute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2012 03:34:54 +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[Waiver of Tort]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Waiver of tort is not available as a tool to force disgorgement of profits in cases under British Columbia&#8217;s consumer protection legislation, the BC Court of Appeal held last week in Koubi v. Mazda Canada. The court declined, however, to rule on the issue of whether waiver of tort is a stand-alone cause of action&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/bc-court-slams-door-on-waiver-of-tort-for-breach-of-statute/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/bc-court-slams-door-on-waiver-of-tort-for-breach-of-statute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Osborne comments on Etobicoke Centre election case for SUN TV&#8217;s Daily Brief</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/osborne-comments-on-etobicoke-centre-case/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=osborne-comments-on-etobicoke-centre-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/osborne-comments-on-etobicoke-centre-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:27:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elections canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elections law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Etobicoke centre riding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1491</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/search/all/source/dailybrief/interpreting-the-elections-act/1727669996001/600_advance_polling_election_canada2_110422/" rel="attachment wp-att-1495 external" target="_blank"><img class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-1495" style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; border-width: 0px;" title="Source: Elections Canada" src="http://www.thelitigator.ca/litigator/wp-content/uploads/600_advance_polling_election_canada2_110422-150x150.jpg" alt="Source: Elections Canada" width="150" height="150" /></a>Michael Osborne summarized both sides of the argument in the Etobicoke Centre election case that was recently heard by the Supreme Court for Sun TV’s Daily Brief.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/osborne-comments-on-etobicoke-centre-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
