Canada: Competition Bureau Issues New Merger Guidelines - What They Mean For Canadian Businesses

On October 6, 2011, Canada's Competition Bureau released newly revised Merger Enforcement Guidelines ("MEGs"). The MEGs set out the analytical framework used by the Bureau in its review of mergers and acquisitions under Canada's Competition Act. Of all the Bureau's various enforcement guidelines, the MEGs are the most used in practice.

These new MEGs replace the prior 2004 edition. Whereas the 2004 revision involved a considerable rewrite of the original 1991 MEGs, the new 2011 MEGs are intended to "address certain discrete areas where the [2004] MEGs do not fully reflect current Bureau practice and current economic and legal thinking". Given that there has been no contested merger decision in Canada since the release of the 2004 MEGs, the latest revision may also be seen as reflecting the Bureau's desire to keep pace with revisions last year to the U.S. Horizontal Merger Guidelines and revisions to guidelines in other jurisdictions.

This perspective provides an overview of key changes in the new MEGs and discusses practical implications for merger parties.

Market Definition

The MEGs' basic "hypothetical monopolist" test for defining relevant product and geographic markets remains intact. The more significant, and controversial, change is the proposition that market definition itself may be unnecessary in certain situations where it is possible to more directly assess potential competitive effects of a merger. Specifically, the MEGs now state that market definition "is not necessarily the initial step, or a required step, but generally is undertaken".

Since the vast majority of mergers obviously raise no significant competition concerns under any conceivable market definition, there may be no need to precisely define markets in many cases.

However, potentially more problematic is the Bureau's suggestion that it may now find a merger to be anticompetitive without engaging in the traditional exercise of defining relevant markets or assessing market shares. In particular, the MEGs now state that where different possible market definitions may yield significantly different market shares, the Bureau "may give greater weight to evidence regarding likely competitive effects that is not based on market share and concentration". For context, developments in economic thinking over the past several years, particularly in the United States, have led to attempts to directly assess (without defining markets) whether the merging firms are particularly close substitutes such that the loss of competition between them is likely to lead to higher prices. For example, in a merger of Firms A and B, the analysis may focus on the extent to which Firm A's prices tend to be lower in markets where Firm B is present (and vice versa) and are less impacted by the presence or absence of other competitors.

It is questionable whether such an approach is consistent with established case law in Canada, which may be interpreted to require that markets be defined. Also, some of the statutory criteria in the Competition Act to be considered in merger review (e.g., barriers to entry or effective remaining competition) implicitly presuppose market definition. It seems unlikely in a contested merger case that market definition would not be considered a fundamental issue by the Competition Tribunal.

Nonetheless, insofar as the MEGs signal the internal Bureau approach to merger review, it would be wise to bear in mind that the Bureau will be considering direct indicators of competitive effects. Merger review is document and data intensive. Internal documents and statistical analyses that tend to show the merging parties as each others' closest alternatives for many customers will be particularly likely to attract Bureau attention. Parties should not assume that market definitions that include other competitors and yield apparently low market shares will necessarily dissuade the Bureau from asserting a competition issue.

Competitive Effects

Closely related to the revisions regarding market definition are the revisions to the analysis of competitive effects, particularly for mergers in industries with differentiated products. Notably, the MEGs now have an expanded discussion of the use of "diversion ratios" (a measurement of sales lost by one merging firm to another when one firm increases prices), including a new reference to margin analysis, in assessing whether merging firms are likely to increase prices.

These revisions appear to be inspired by recent economic thinking on techniques to assess competitive effects, including some approaches that are reflected in the 2010 U.S. Horizontal Merger Guidelines, such as "upward pricing pressure". In the United States, adoption of these techniques has not been without controversy. While the new MEGs do not go as far as the U.S. guidelines in expressly discussing some of these newer techniques, the Bureau has at least allowed itself greater latitude to pursue analyses similar to those that may occur in the United States and elsewhere. Consequently, merging parties should expect that the Bureau may focus increasingly on evidence of competitive rivalry between the parties (irrespective of market shares), particularly in the context of cross-border and international mergers where the Bureau often communicates with U.S. and E.U. competition agencies.


An important mitigating consideration in Canadian merger review has traditionally been whether other firms would likely enter or expand their operations so as to defeat an attempt by the merged firm to increase prices. The prior MEGs established a two-year time frame as generally being an appropriate period for assessing whether such entry was likely to occur. In other words, effective entry within two years would generally be sufficient to avoid a challenge in an otherwise concentrated market. The new MEGs have removed the two-year reference, and instead now refer to whether entry would occur "quickly enough", which may mean that the Bureau would look for entry within less than two years to refrain from challenge.

The Bureau's stated reason for the change is that in practice the appropriate period varies from industry to industry, and that more flexibility was needed to reflect this reality. Also, given the prospect that market definition may now be dispensed with altogether in certain cases, it is perhaps unsurprising that the analysis of entry into a market has been rendered less precise.

Nonetheless, it would have been preferable to retain the two-year time period for general guidance, particularly since it has proven a helpful benchmark in many cases. Moreover, where entry would likely occur within two years to defeat attempts to exercise market power, it is not clear why the Bureau would ever oppose such a merger. In practice, merging parties should continue to highlight entry that would likely occur within two years (or faster), but be mindful that the Bureau will not simply consider the mere prospect of such entry to address all potential competition concerns.

Minority Interests and Interlocking Directorates

The new MEGs expand the discussion of situations where minority shareholdings could give rise to a "significant interest" and therefore potentially be reviewed under the merger provisions. While the scope for finding a merger now seems broad, the practical impact of these revisions may be modest. New provisions of the Competition Act that came into force in 2010 may already give the Bureau considerable latitude to review the competitive impact of minority shareholdings between competitors. Given the choice, parties may prefer that a minority shareholding be treated as a merger, since mergers are subject to a one-year limitation period and also allow for the option of seeking clearance through the advance ruling certificate process.

The MEGs revisions also expand the discussion of interlocking directorates, which may be relevant in two situations. First, they may contribute to establishing a "significant interest" by one party in another (and therefore a merger). Second, a merger may have the collateral effect of creating a new interlock between directors of the merged firm and a third party.

It is clear that interlocking directorates are on the Bureau's radar screen and parties will need to be sensitive to their potential to raise legitimate competition concerns, even though such concerns relate more to information exchanges than the existence of a merger. At the same time, it is hoped that the Bureau will give due regard to the fact that Canadian competition law (which oversees a smaller economy with inevitably more board overlaps) did not opt to follow U.S. antitrust law, which contains specific provisions targeting interlocking directorates.

Non-Horizontal Mergers

The MEGs offer new guidance on the potential competition concerns raised by non-horizontal mergers – i.e., mergers between firms that are not competitors. The comments regarding vertical mergers (between customer and supplier) are straightforward and set out the types of foreclosure concerns that can arise. The Bureau continues to examine such vertical issues with increasing frequency. More new guidance in respect of conglomerate mergers (where there is no horizontal or vertical relationship between the merging parties) has also been added. However, it is highly speculative in suggesting potential areas of concern, particularly since conglomerate mergers rarely raise competition issues.


The new MEGs supersede prior Bureau guidance on efficiencies, including the 2009 Bureau bulletin on "Efficiencies in Merger Review". Unfortunately, there continues to be little practical guidance from the Bureau on how it deals with efficiency claims.

In the wake of the 2002 decision by the Competition Tribunal in the Superior Propane case, the Bureau appeared to be favouring adopting a "balancing weights" approach to evaluating efficiency claims. This approach is admittedly difficult to apply in practice (for example, it requires measuring, among other things, how much of the "wealth transfer" from consumers to producers should be considered an anticompetitive effect). Nonetheless, it provides a rough framework for weighing efficiency gains against anticompetitive harms. However, the new MEGs do not endorse even the balancing weights approach, preferring instead to leave largely undefined the potential approach the Bureau may take in the future to assessing efficiencies arguments.

It remains to be seen how much practical impact this shift will have. Although efficiencies may offer an important rationale for some mergers, parties rarely proceed with a merger on the expectation that the Bureau will decline to challenge it purely on efficiency grounds. Efficiencies are likely to continue to matter, if at all, where the competition concern is borderline and the efficiencies are compelling. It is doubtful that the new MEGs have significantly changed that dynamic.


The new MEGs do not fundamentally alter the Bureau's basic approach to merger review, but rather are intended to update the MEGs to more accurately reflect current Bureau practice.

The revisions can be understood foremost as preserving enforcement flexibility for the Bureau given that merger review is inevitably fact specific. While that may be understandable from a practical perspective, the result is a document that now offers less tangible guidance for practitioners. For example, as noted above, gone is the two-year time frame for assessing entry, as well as the balancing weights framework for efficiencies. Gone also are the case references in the footnotes of the 2004 MEGs, which provided a link to the limited Tribunal cases and Bureau enforcement actions to date.

The most notable development in the new MEGs is the indication that the Bureau may find competition concerns in certain mergers without having to define relevant markets. As such, in cases where there is evidence that the merging parties may be particularly close substitutes for many consumers, those parties would be well-advised not to take false comfort from seemingly low market shares or the presence of other competitors in the market.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Mark C. Katz
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.