Canada: Who´s On First?

Last Updated: February 24 2003

Article by Robert Malcolmson and Michael Koch


A recent jurisdictional tussle pitted the Bureau of Competition Policy’s general mandate under the Competition Act against the specific mandate of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ("CRTC" or the "Commission") under the Broadcasting Act.

The Federal Court of Canada had been asked to rule on the respective jurisdictions of the CRTC, and the Competition Tribunal in the context of a proposed sale of media assets. The matter was recently settled by way of a consent order that saw the purchaser agree to the divestiture of certain assets. If the matter had not been resolved consensually, the Federal Court’s decision could well have had far reaching implications for future mergers of media companies that are regulated both under the Broadcasting Act and the Competition Act.

The dispute began on December 21, 2001 when the Commissioner of Competition Policy (the "Commissioner") filed an Application with the Competition Tribunal seeking an order prohibiting Astral Media Inc. ("Astral") from acquiring certain radio stations owned by Telemedia Radio Inc. The request for an order of prohibition flowed from the Commissioner’s determination that the proposed transaction would result in a substantial lessening of competition in certain French-language radio markets in the Province of Québec. The Commissioner concluded that the radio advertising market in question was a separate and distinct market from other forms of advertising media such as print (including newspapers, periodicals and outdoor advertising) and television. Consequently, these other forms of media were not viewed as effective substitutes.

In response to the Commissioner’s request for an order of prohibition from the Competition Tribunal, Astral Media asked the Federal Court of Canada to issue a declaration stating that the Competition Act did not apply to the proposed transaction and that the Commissioner did not have jurisdiction under the Act to conduct an inquiry in respect of this transaction.

Five months after the Commissioner sought to block the merger, the CRTC issued Decision 2002-90 approving Astral’s acquisition of the Telemedia radio stations. In approving the transaction, the Commission determined that the acquisition was in furtherance of the statutory objectives of the Broadcasting Act, consistent with the Commission’s Commercial Radio Policy and would "improve the competitive position of private French-language radio in Québec" (CRTC Decision 2002-90, paragraph 3).

The CRTC’s Decision stands in stark contrast to the conclusions of the Commissioner of Competition Policy. In its Decision, the CRTC took the view that the radio advertising market is not a separate and distinct market but rather a subset of a larger advertising market that includes television and print media. To this end, the CRTC accepted evidence led by Astral that in recent years both AM and FM radio stations in Québec have lost considerable market share to television and daily and weekly newspapers. Second, the Commission accepted Astral’s argument that a greater concentration of radio and the establishment of strong radio networks with Québec-wide coverage were essential for radio to compete with other highly concentrated media mega-companies in the Province of Québec, notably Québecor/Vidéotron. Third, the Commission noted in its Decision that save and except for one limited exception, Astral’s proposed acquisition was consistent with the Commission’s Commercial Radio Policy which permits an entity to own or control as many as two AM and two FM stations in a single language in markets with eight commercial radio stations or more, and to own or control as many as three stations (with a maximum of two stations in any one frequency band), in markets with fewer than eight commercial radio stations.

In its Decision, the Commission held that the various daily newspaper, television and other media operating in each of the markets in question, while not "perfect substitutes" for radio, did serve as "effective alternatives" and that the evidence demonstrated that television offered local advertisers inventories and costs that are competitive with those offered by radio in certain of the markets in question. Moreover, the Commission made these findings of fact while also recognizing that the transaction "will position Astral Media as the largest player in Quebec’s radio industry, whether measured by the number of radio stations owned, audience share or revenues".

Traditionally, the CRTC and the Competition Bureau have peacefully co-existed by asserting parallel jurisdiction with respect to merger reviews. Both bodies have taken the view that any transaction must comply with the Competition Act and the Broadcasting Act, as administered by the Commissioner of Competition Policy and the CRTC respectively. Based on the CRTC’s findings and the findings of the Commissioner of Competition Policy following its merger review, the concept of parallel jurisdiction threatened to be tested to its fullest extent. Specifically, the Astral case raised some key questions:

  1. Was there a true operational conflict between the exercise of the CRTC’s jurisdiction under the Broadcasting Act and the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Competition Policy pursuant to the Competition Act? If so, how will the Federal Court of Canada resolve this operational conflict?
  2. In a proceeding before the Competition Tribunal, was Astral entitled to avail itself of the "regulated conduct" defence by relying on the CRTC’s findings in its Decision?
  3. Did the CRTC exceed its jurisdiction under the Broadcasting Act by making findings of fact and applying economic tests typically associated with merger reviews under the Competition Act?

Operational Conflict?

Traditionally, the Courts have found that an operational conflict exists where two administrative tribunals reach decisions that are truly in conflict, meaning compliance with one necessitates the violation of the other. In this particular case, the CRTC decided that the acquisition by Astral of the Telemedia radio stations was in furtherance of the statutory objectives of the Broadcasting Act and as such could proceed. By way of contrast, the Commissioner of Competition Policy referred the transaction to the Competition Tribunal on the basis that if it were to proceed, it would result in a substantial lessening of competition in the relevant market. The Court might have found that there is no true operational conflict. Rather, the Court may have found the Astral acquisition, while permissible under the Broadcasting Act, simply was not compliant with the provisions of the Competition Act. As a result, Astral would have been required as it ultimately did, to address the Commissioner of Competition Policy’s concerns (i.e. through conditions such as the divestiture of certain stations in certain markets) in order to be able to proceed with the transaction. A restructuring of the transaction of course necessitates another round of regulatory filings and approvals by the CRTC pursuant to the Broadcasting Act to deal with regulated assets being reallocated or otherwise spun-off.

If the actions of the Commissioner of Competition Policy and the CRTC were viewed as true operational conflicts, the question would have been how does the conflict get resolved? In the leading case of British Columbia Telephone Co. v. Shaw Cable Systems (BC) Ltd. the Supreme Court of Canada held that the court should employ a pragmatic and functional approach and decide in light of the policy schemes surrounding each of the administrative tribunals and the nature of the conflicting decisions which the legislature would have intended to take precedence.

Factors taken into account include the legislative purpose behind the establishment of each administrative tribunal, the extent to which an administrative tribunal’s decision is central to the purpose of that tribunal and the degree to which an administrative tribunal in reaching a decision is fulfilling a policy-making or policy implementation role. It is this last criterion which might very well have been determinative in the case at hand. The Courts have consistently recognized the CRTC’s broad policy-making role pursuant to the Broadcasting Act. In the Astral case, the high level of curial deference traditionally accorded to the CRTC would have been tested.

Regulated Conduct

The regulated conduct defence generally provides that activity specifically required or authorized pursuant to a valid scheme of regulation is deemed to be in the public interest. In its submissions to the Federal Court of Canada, Astral Media asserted that the regulated conduct defence or exemption applied to its acquisition of the Telemedia radio stations. By way of contrast, the Commissioner of Competition Policy took the position that the regulated conduct defence or exemption was inapplicable. It would certainly appear that the applicable criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Canadian Breweries Ltd. and Canada (A.G.) v. Law Society (British Columbia) to establish the regulated conduct defence were present. To summarize, in order for the regulated conduct defence to apply the following key factors must be present:

  1. An industry must be subject to regulation pursuant to validly enacted legislation.
  2. The defence is limited to those activities or types of conduct specifically subject to regulation.
  3. It is not enough for the regulatory body merely to possess the authority to control the activity or conduct in question, the regulatory authority must be exercised in order for the defence to apply.

Each of these factors was present in the Astral case. The radio stations acquired by Astral were all licensed radio programming undertakings pursuant to the Broadcasting Act and ownership transfers require the CRTC’s prior approval pursuant to the Radio Regulations made under the Broadcasting Act. Finally, in this case the CRTC rendered a Decision approving the acquisition. Accordingly, it would appear that all of the constituent elements of the regulated conduct defence were operative.

Prior to Astral’s settlement with the Commissioner, The Federal Court of Canada had an opportunity to clarify the scope of the regulated conduct defence in the Astral case. Uncertainty has traditionally surrounded the scope of the regulated conduct defence. Most of the cases involving the application of the regulated conduct defence have involved a potential conflict between the Federal competition law and a Provincial regulatory regime. Moreover, most of the cases have dealt with a potential conflict between the criminal provisions of the Competition Act and specialized regulation. Accordingly, criminal justice concerns have weighed heavily in some Courts’ decisions to restrict the scope of the Competition Act.

None of the above factors were present in Astral. In Astral, we had two Federal laws and hence no constitutional issue. The provisions of the Competition Act in issue were the civil provisions surrounding merger reviews rather than the criminal components of the Competition Act. Accordingly there was no criminal justice overhang in Astral. As a result, the Court would have had an opportunity to apply the regulated conduct defence in its purest form.

Did The CRTC Exceed Its Jurisdiction Under The Broadcasting Act?

This is another interesting question raised by Astral. Pursuant to the Broadcasting Act the Commission has the broad jurisdiction to "regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system with a view to implementing the broadcasting policies set out in subsection 3(1)". Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act contains an extensive list of statutory objectives described therein as the "Broadcasting Policy" for Canada. This policy generally pertains to the development of a broadcasting system that is effectively owned and controlled by Canadians, that promotes the primacy of Canadian programming and ensures a diversity of voices in both official languages. While this statutory mandate does not explicitly empower it to regulate competition issues per se, the CRTC has, since the legislation was first introduced in 1968, imposed a significant degree of competitive regulation on the Canadian broadcasting system through policies on ownership concentration, restrictions on cross-media ownership and most recently in policing anti-competitive behaviour between regulated entities pursuant to an overall prohibition on undue preference. Moreover, the Director of Competition Policy has traditionally acknowledged that the CRTC’s merger review process necessarily involves competition issues such as the impact of mergers on advertising markets.

Consequently, it could be that the Court would have concluded that the CRTC’s assessment of the competitive state of the Quebec radio market was nothing more than a necessary adjunct to the exercise of its jurisdiction under the Broadcasting Act. However, a contrary view can also be taken. For example, in Astral, the Commission made a determination that radio was part of a larger advertising market and that other components of that larger market functioned as effective substitutes for any lessening of competition that would result from the position Astral would occupy in the market. These conclusions led in part to the Commission’s decision to approve the merger.

With the settlement of this case, we will have to wait and see how the Federal Court addresses this issue of jurisdiction.

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific 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.

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.