Contributors: Michael Osborne , Jennifer Cantwell, Paul Emerson, Angela Yadav, Sonny Ingram, and Michael Binetti TOP STORIES Rona keeps Sherbrooke store In May, the Competition Tribunal rescinded a September 2003 consent agreement, allowing home improvement retailer Rona Inc. to keep the Sherbrooke , Quebec store it agreed to sell to gain Bureau approval of its acquisition of Réno-Dépot. The Tribunal found that Home Depot’s imminent arrival was a change in the circumstances that led to the consent agreement, and that the agreement would not have been made in the present circumstances. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner’s arguments that it should refuse to rescind the agreement as a matter of discretion. The Tribunal’s decision is the first time that the Competition Act’s variation / rescission provision (s. 106) has been applied to a consent agreement. Because consent agreements are negotiated and made by the parties, not the Tribunal, the Tribunal must look to the intentions of the parties. The Tribunal also emphasized that the Commissioner must be responsive to changing circumstances. [more] Full article

In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has made it clear that professionals who are the subject to defamatory statements made during disciplinary proceedings that merely repeat allegations made in the initial complaint cannot sue the maker of such statements – no matter how false and egregious the statements might be and no matter how malicious their intent. [more] Full article

A discharged employee cannot recover damages for loss of disability benefits in addition to damages for wrongful dismissal, the Ontario Court of Appeal held in a decision issued on January 10, 2006. Awarding such damages would constitute double recovery, the court said. [more] Full article

In its recent unanimous decision in Pearson v. Inco., the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the decision of Superior Court Justice Ian Nordheimer that had refused to certify an environmental class proceeding against Inco Ltd. and made a substantial costs award against the representative plaintiff that many observers characterized as having a 'chilling' effect on future class proceedings. [more] Full article