<?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; Private Actions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/competition-law/private-actions-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>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>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>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>Class action waiver upheld in competition case</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 05:48:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action waiver]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Canada enforced a class action waiver and an arbitration clause in a private action under section 36 of the Competition Act.[1] The decision is significant because it clearly states two important principles: Class action waivers will be enforced unless they are contrary to statute Claims alleging breaches&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Indirect Purchaser Cases to be Heard by Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:37:58 +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[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Archer Daniels Midland Company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft Corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sun-Rype Products Ltd.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1030</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On December 1, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear appeals in two cases that raise the issue: can indirect purchasers sue to recover losses arising from a price fixing conspiracy?[i] This issue has bedevilled Canadian courts for years. Direct purchasers are purchasers who buy directly from the participants in a price fixing&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Discoverability does not apply to competition claims</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/discoverability-does-not-apply-to-competition-claims/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=discoverability-does-not-apply-to-competition-claims</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/discoverability-does-not-apply-to-competition-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 21:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dywidag Systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Garfod PTY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[limitation period]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=943</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Court has recently ruled that the discoverability rule does not apply to extend the limitation period applicable to private actions launched to recover damages caused by breaches of the Competition Act.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/discoverability-does-not-apply-to-competition-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canadian Plaintiffs Acheive a Breakthrough in Certifying Price Fixing Class Actions</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/08/canadian-plaintiffs-acheive-a-breakthrough-in-certifying-price-fixing-class-actions/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=canadian-plaintiffs-acheive-a-breakthrough-in-certifying-price-fixing-class-actions</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/08/canadian-plaintiffs-acheive-a-breakthrough-in-certifying-price-fixing-class-actions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:21:15 +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[11(d)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canadian class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chadha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Irving Paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kingstreet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plaintiffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proving damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver of Tort]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=731</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Courts in two Canadian cases have recently made it easier to certify direct and indirect-purchaser class actions seeking damages for alleged price fixing. Formerly, the difficulty of proving damages suffered by indirect purchasers on a class-wide basis was a major impediment to certifying such actions. The two decisions, DRAM (Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/08/canadian-plaintiffs-acheive-a-breakthrough-in-certifying-price-fixing-class-actions/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/08/canadian-plaintiffs-acheive-a-breakthrough-in-certifying-price-fixing-class-actions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Aggregate Assessment of Damages Allows Certification of Conspiracy Class Actions, Courts Hold</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/aggregate-assessment-of-damages-allows-certifcation-of-conspiracy-class-actions-courts-hold/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=aggregate-assessment-of-damages-allows-certifcation-of-conspiracy-class-actions-courts-hold</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/aggregate-assessment-of-damages-allows-certifcation-of-conspiracy-class-actions-courts-hold/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:36:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Atofina Chemicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british columbia court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM memory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hydrogen perozide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infineon Technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Irving Paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=697</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In two recent decisions, the Ontario Superior Court and the British Columbia Court of Appeal relied on the aggregate damages provisions of the Class Proceedings Act in their respective provinces to certify class actions seeking damages for alleged conspiracies to fix prices for hydrogen peroxide and DRAM memory chips. In doing this, both courts side-stepped the requirement in the aggregate damages provisions that liability must be proved before damages can be assessed in the aggregate. A close examination of the decisions suggests, however, that the courts have in effect done away with this statutory requirement.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/aggregate-assessment-of-damages-allows-certifcation-of-conspiracy-class-actions-courts-hold/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Complex Distribution Chain Kills DRAM Class Action – Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies AG</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/04/complex-distribution-chain-kills-dram-class-action-%e2%80%93-pro-sys-consultants-ltd-v-infineon-technologies-ag/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=complex-distribution-chain-kills-dram-class-action-%25e2%2580%2593-pro-sys-consultants-ltd-v-infineon-technologies-ag</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/04/complex-distribution-chain-kills-dram-class-action-%e2%80%93-pro-sys-consultants-ltd-v-infineon-technologies-ag/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:32:02 +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[BC Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cy-pres]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM memory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infineon technologies ag]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver of Tort]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=436</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A proposed class action by purchasers of electronic goods containing DRAM memory chips would degenerate into a series of individual trials, the British Columbia Supreme Court has held in Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies AG.2 Key issues, including whether the plaintiffs paid more because of price-fixing by manufacturers of the chips, could not be determined on a class-wide basis. The court thus refused to certify the action as a class proceeding.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/04/complex-distribution-chain-kills-dram-class-action-%e2%80%93-pro-sys-consultants-ltd-v-infineon-technologies-ag/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Passing-on no defence; unlawfully collected taxes must be refunded, Supreme Court rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/01/passing-on-no-defence-unlawfully-collected-taxes-must-be-refunded-supreme-court-rules/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=passing-on-no-defence-unlawfully-collected-taxes-must-be-refunded-supreme-court-rules</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/01/passing-on-no-defence-unlawfully-collected-taxes-must-be-refunded-supreme-court-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:31:49 +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[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1867; restitution; Competition law; passing-on defence; indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional law; provincial powers; indirect taxes; Constitution Act; Chadha; Kingstreet; Canfor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=316</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Governments must refund money they collect through unconstitutional taxes, and cannot rely on the so-called ""passing-on"" defence to avoid repayment, the Supreme Court ruled in January 2007.The court's rejection of the passing-on defence may have major implications in private litigation, particularly competition (antitrust) cases.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/01/passing-on-no-defence-unlawfully-collected-taxes-must-be-refunded-supreme-court-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appeal court allows patent conspiracy allegations to proceed</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/appeal-court-allows-patent-conspiracy-allegations-to-proceed/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=appeal-court-allows-patent-conspiracy-allegations-to-proceed</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/appeal-court-allows-patent-conspiracy-allegations-to-proceed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:41:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[merger provisions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=318</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On June 14, the Federal Court of Appeal reversed a decision of the Federal Court that struck out a claim by Apotex Inc. that an assignment of a patent by Shionogi &#038; Co. Ltd. to Eli Lilly and Company was a conspiracy to limit competition unduly contrary to s. 45 of the Competition Act.[1] Apotex&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/appeal-court-allows-patent-conspiracy-allegations-to-proceed/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/appeal-court-allows-patent-conspiracy-allegations-to-proceed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court refuses to certify indirect purchaser class because of difficulties in proving liability:Chadha v. Bayer Inc.</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2003/11/court-refuses-to-certify-indirect-purchaser-class-because-of-difficulties-in-proving-liabilitychadha-v-bayer-inc/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=court-refuses-to-certify-indirect-purchaser-class-because-of-difficulties-in-proving-liabilitychadha-v-bayer-inc</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2003/11/court-refuses-to-certify-indirect-purchaser-class-because-of-difficulties-in-proving-liabilitychadha-v-bayer-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:14:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer class actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal rules of civil procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its recent decision in Chadha v. Bayer Inc., the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court’s refusal to certify a class of indirect purchasers of pigments used to colour bricks. The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal on July 17, 2003.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2003/11/court-refuses-to-certify-indirect-purchaser-class-because-of-difficulties-in-proving-liabilitychadha-v-bayer-inc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
