You might also be interested in...
- From the Editor
European Union: Damages Directive approved by EU Parliament
New rules to harmonise procedure for antitrust damages actions
European Union: New EU competition rules on technology transfer
The new rules could require the amendment of certain clauses in technology transfer agreements
France: The new "Hamon Law" introducing French class
New consumer law introduces significant provisions with respect to competition and distribution law
Italy: New developments in the "Pfizer saga"
A recent judgment provides further guidance on the interaction between antitrust law and patent law in the pharmaceutical sector
UK: The Competition and Markets Authority launches operations
The new UK competition authority will have additional powers and handle cases differently than before
Canada: Consent agreement reached with e-book publishers
Canada has reached a settlement with e-book publishers following settlements in the EU and the US
Japan and South Korea: Crackdown on bid-rigging in East Asia
Asian competition authorities show they are increasingly serious about bid-rigging activities
China: Life Technologies/ Thermo Fischer
China's antitrust regulator is a key gatekeeper in international merger control filings
China: MOFCOM adopts Simple Cases Regulation
Adoption of simplified merger review rules follows recent European Commission reforms
Australia: The country may lead the world on competition
In Australia, a comprehensive reform of competition policy is taking place
South Africa: The growing importance of public interest factors in
Foreign companies planning acquisitions in Africa need to consider the impact on the public interest
South Africa: Dawn raids rise again
The South African Competition Commission is currently intensifying its efforts in relation to cartel infringements
On 3 February 2014, the Federal Court of Appeal (the court) ruled1 that the Competition Tribunal (the tribunal) took too narrow an approach to the Competition Act's abuse of dominance provisions, sending the commissioner of competition's case against the Toronto Real Estate Board2 back to the tribunal for reconsideration. At issue is whether conduct not directed at a competitor can fall within the scope of the dominance provisions.
The Toronto Real Estate Board (TREB) is a trade association whose members include most real estate agents in Toronto. It restricts how its members can provide information to their customers, which the commissioner argued is an abuse of dominance contrary to section 79 of the Competition Act.
In April 2013, the tribunal concluded that, because TREB's actions did not affect competitors, its conduct did not fall within the scope of section 79.
Federal Court of Appeal decision
The court reviewed the tribunal's decision on the correct standard of review. The court found that the tribunal's interpretation of a leading dominance case, Canada Pipe, was incorrect, and as a result the court ordered the tribunal to reconsider its decision on the merits.
The court agreed with the commissioner's position that a person can substantially control a market within the meaning of subsection 79(1)(a) of the Act and that its conduct can have an anti-competitive effect on that market, even if that person is not a competitor of the persons targeted by its conduct. Further, the court stated that the Canada Pipe decision does not preclude a person who does not compete in a market from engaging in anti-competitive acts.
In addition, the commissioner submitted, and the court agreed, that consideration of subsection 79(4), which requires the tribunal to determine whether the anti-competitive act is the result of superior competitive performance, cannot be used to infer that an order could not be made against TREB solely because it does not compete with its members.
Competition Bureau guidelines
While the tribunal found support for its decision in the Competition Bureau's 2012 Abuse of Dominance Guidelines, the court stated the guidelines "at most" show that "the Commissioner's understanding of the scope of subsection 79(1) has changed over time" and the guidelines provide no useful guidance to the Court.3 In light of that, at the conclusion of this case the bureau may be inclined to revise its abuse of dominance guidelines, which have previously been criticized for providing less guidance than previous versions.4
The tribunal will rehear the case and will have to take into account the court's statements about sections 78 and 79 of the Act.
Although the commissioner has said he is pleased with the court's decision, it is important to note that a rehearing does not guarantee success when the tribunal reconsiders the matter. The tribunal could reconsider the matter and effectively come to the same conclusion as it did when it first heard the case.
Indeed, in the Superior Propane case, the court had sent a matter to the tribunal for reconsideration but the tribunal came back with the same conclusion as in its initial decision, although based on a different methodology.5
In the meantime, this decision creates uncertainty because the court and the tribunal have taken different positions as to whether a trade association, which is not a competitor in the market, can engage in abuse of dominance.
1Commissioner of Competition v Toronto
Real Estate Board, 2014 FCA 29.
2Commissioner of Competition v Toronto Real Estate Board, 2013 Comp Trib 9.
3Commissioner of Competition v Toronto Real Estate Board, 2014 FCA 29, at para 21.
4See, for example, Kevin Ackhurst and Denis Gascon, "Canada: Monopolisation" in The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2014 (Global Competition Review, 2014).
5See, Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Superior Propane Inc., 2001 FCA 104; the tribunal's reconsideration, Commissioner of Competition v Superior Propane Inc., 2002 CACT 16; and the Federal Court of Appeal decision confirming the second tribunal decision, Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Superior Propane Inc., 2003 FCA 53.