Canada: Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal Endorses a Forward-Looking Approach to Prevention of Competition

Last Updated: March 12 2013
Article by Nikiforos Iatrou and Scott McGrath

INTRODUCTION

For the first time in a decade, Canada's appellate courts have weighed in on the merits of a contested merger, upholding the Competition Tribunal's divestiture order in Commissioner of Competition v Tervita Corporation.

During the tenure of Melanie Aitken, Commissioner of Competition from 2009 to 2012, the Canadian Competition Bureau had increased its enforcement presence. The decision in Tervita vindicates the then-Commissioner's aggressive approach to merger enforcement, not only because of its rarity – the case marks the first time since 2005 that the Competition Bureau had challenged a merger before the Competition Tribunal, and is only the sixth litigated merger in Canadian history – but because of the nature of the allegations: the Commissioner alleged that the transaction prevented competition that had not yet arisen, as opposed to typical merger cases where the allegations involve a lessening of pre-existing competition.

The decision sets a clear framework for future prevention cases. Importantly, it also marks an alignment between Canadian and American jurisprudence, as the Federal Court of Appeal drew on U.S. caselaw to shed light on what elements and what evidence need to be present for the Bureau to succeed in what the U.S. authorities would refer to as an "actual potential competition case". Tervita is equally notable for the fact that the deal was non-notifiable and had already been consummated by the time the Commissioner brought her case.

THE FACTS THAT BROUGHT THE COMMISSIONER BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A LONG TIME

Tervita – the acquiror in this case, formerly known as CCS Corp. – owns the only two operating hazardous waste landfills in Northeastern British Columbia ("NEBC"). These landfills are specially designed for the permanent disposal of solid hazardous waste, most of which is generated by oil and gas companies as a by-product of drilling for and producing oil and natural gas.

Complete Environmental Inc. ("Complete") – the company that Tervita acquired – owned certain lands in NEBC. These lands are situated in the heart of shale gas country, just off of the Alaska Highway, making them easily accessible for oil and gas exploration companies seeking to dispose of hazardous waste. Recognizing the potential of this site, Complete's predecessors began in 2006 to obtain the necessary approvals to establish a hazardous waste landfill at the site known as Babkirk.

After a lengthy, uncertain and expensive regulatory process, the necessary regulatory approvals for Babkirk were obtained in February 2010. Soon thereafter, the individuals who owned Complete (the "vendors") began approaching a number of participants in the waste management industry, including Tervita, for expressions of interest. By the summer of 2010, Tervita had entered into a binding agreement to buy Complete and the deal closed in January 2011 for roughly $6 million. To put that transaction size into context, in Canada, unless a deal is valued at over $77 million, the transacting parties are not required to notify the Bureau of the deal.

One of Tervita's competitors brought the deal to the Bureau's attention and the transaction closed over the Bureau's objection that the merger would maintain Tervita's monopoly for hazardous waste disposal services in the area. The Commissioner brought her case challenging the merger three weeks after the deal closed. The case was brought pursuant to s. 92 of the Competition Act, which grants jurisdiction to the Tribunal to intervene where "a merger or proposed merger prevents or lessens, or is likely to prevent or lessen, competition substantially" (emphasis added).

The case culminated in a trial that took place in November and December 2011. The Commissioner argued that Tervita had substantially prevented competition that would have arisen if a competitor, rather than Tervita, were to build and operate a landfill at Babkirk. The Commissioner alleged that Tervita's acquisition of Complete thwarted this possibility. In response, Tervita and Complete took the position that if Tervita had not purchased Complete, Complete's owners would not have operated a secure landfill at Babkirk, but instead would have operated a bioremediation business that would not compete with Tervita's landfilling operations. Since there was no competition or likelihood of competition, they argued, the Commissioner's case must fail.

THE TRIBUNAL SIDES WITH THE COMMISSIONER

The Tribunal released its decision in May 2012. The Tribunal accepted that, absent the sale to Tervita, the vendors would not have immediately operated a secure landfill in competition with Tervita. However, the Tribunal carried on to consider the viability of the vendors' bioremediation business and agreed with the Commissioner that the bioremediation business would have failed and the vendors would have switched course.

The Tribunal found that, but for the merger, the vendors would have operated the bioremediation business for a year, from October 2011 to October 2012. It found that this business would have failed for want of customers and due to the technical limitations of bioremediating hazardous waste. The Tribunal then found that after the bioremediation business failed, the vendors would have either begun operating the facility as a secure landfill themselves, or would have sold the site to another party that would have operated it as a secure landfill. In either event, by the spring of 2013, there would be an operational landfill at Babkirk.

The Tribunal concluded that the operation of a secure landfill at the site by the spring of 2013 would have resulted in substantial competition for the supply of secure landfill services. The Tribunal relied on Tervita's internal documents that predicted that it stood to lose a great deal of money, market power and operating margins if a competitor operated a landfill at Babkirk. These documents hinted at the likelihood of a price war in the region; competition that the Commissioner alleged was thwarted as a result of the merger. The Tribunal also noted that in neighbouring Alberta, where Tervita faces competition from other secure landfill operators, landfilling prices are significantly lower.

In the result, the Tribunal ordered Tervita to sell the assets relating to the landfill site, including the regulatory permits. The order directed that the sale be to a purchaser approved by the Commissioner. As is customary in Canadian divestiture orders, the Tribunal ordered that if Tervita was unable to sell the acquired assets within a specific period of time, a trustee would be charged with completing the sale on Tervita's behalf.

THE COURT OF APPEAL ENDORSES THE FORWARD-LOOKING APPROACH TO MERGER REVIEW

Tervita appealed the Tribunal's decision to the Federal Court of Appeal ("FCA") on a number of grounds. Chief among them, Tervita argued that the Tribunal had erred by extending its analysis beyond the date of the merger and engaging in "uncabined speculation" regarding possible future events. In a decision dated February 11, 2013, the FCA unanimously dismissed Tervita's appeal.

The Tribunal found that in a prevention case, it was charged with determining whether the new entry that the Commissioner alleged was prevented would have occurred within a reasonable period of time. Tervita challenged this interpretation, arguing that the Tribunal's analysis should be confined to the time around the merger, not in the future. The FCA rejected Tervita's position. It stated:

Contrary to most trial courts, which are essentially concerned with ascertaining the facts relating to past events, the Tribunal's role under sections 92 and 96 of the Competition Act requires it to project into the future various events in order to ascertain their potential economic and commercial impacts. The role of the Tribunal is thus to identify and remedy market problems that have not yet occurred. This is a daunting exercise steeped in economic theory and requiring a deep understanding of the economic and commercial factors at issue. Because an appellate court may encounter difficulties in fully understanding the economic and commercial aspects of the Tribunal's decision, it must defer to its findings of fact and of mixed law and fact on these issues.

Thus, not only must the Tribunal look into the future to determine whether the new entry would have occurred within a reasonable period of time, its findings in this regard deserve particular deference.

The next question to be determined on appeal was the meaning of "reasonable period of time". The FCA found that while this will necessarily vary from case to case and will depend on the business under consideration, certain guidelines should be followed to ascertain the appropriate temporal framework for "poised entry" in any given prevention case.

First, the time frame must be discernable. An amorphous determination that there would have been entry in the market at a future, undeterminable date will not be sufficient to satisfy the antitrust enforcer's burden of proof. Second, the time frame for thwarted competition should fall within the temporal dimension of the barriers to entry into the market at issue. In Tervita, the evidence established that it would take a new entrant at least 30 months to open a secure landfill. Absent the merger, the Tribunal held, there would have been competition within about two years. This was within the time frame of the barriers to entry, thus meeting this branch of the test. Tervita therefore clarifies that poised entry means entry within the time frame relating to barriers to entry.

In coming to this view, the FCA cited the U.S. decision in BOC International Ltd v Federal Trade Commission, where the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that:

It seems necessary ... that the finding of probable entry at least contain some reasonable temporal estimate related to the near future, with 'near' defined in terms of entry barriers and lead time necessary for entry in the particular industry, and that the finding be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The FCA agreed with the sentiment of this passage and found that using the barriers to entry in the market in question would be a helpful guidepost for future prevention cases in determining whether the entrant under consideration was "poised" to enter the market. The FCA stressed that it was not establishing a hard and fast rule, and that in some cases it might be appropriate to expand the temporal analysis beyond the temporal dimension of the barriers to market entry.

Bringing the analysis back to the facts before it, the FCA rejected the submission that the Tribunal had engaged in unbridled speculation. On the contrary, it recounted the evidence that was before the Tribunal in support of the conclusion that the bioremediation business of the vendors would have failed. The vendors' own internal documents showed that they were prepared only to try the bioremediation business for a year. There were no identifiable customers for bioremediation and the cost of bioremediation would have far outweighed the cost of disposal at a secure landfill. Given those market dynamics, the FCA found that it was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that the bioremediation business would have failed and that the vendors would have switched course, operating the secure landfill themselves or selling it to a third party that would have done so.

WHY TERVITA MATTERS

Tervita sets an important precedent for antitrust enforcement in North America.

1. Prevention of Competition Cases can Successfully be Brought

Tervita demonstrates that it is possible for an antitrust enforcement agency to successfully challenge a merger solely on the ground that it prevents future competition. This had not previously been done in North America. The line of cases in the U.S., including ited States v Marine Bancorporation, Inc, Yamaha Motor Co Ltd v Federal Trade Commission, and BOC International Ltd v Federal Trade Commission, raised these issues and developed the equivalent U.S. doctrine of "actual potential competition", but the enforcement agencies' efforts in these cases were all ultimately unsuccessful.

The acceptance of the prevention of competition model in Tervita provides a vital framework for future cases and sets a precedent that should be utilized to its fullest advantage by North American antitrust enforcers going forward. From the merging parties' perspective, the lesson is, just because you're not competing today, don't think that you're immune from an enforcement challenge tomorrow.

2. Barriers to Entry Serve as a Guidepost for the Forward-Looking Time Frame

While it did not set down a hard rule, the FCA reasoned that in a prevention of competition case, the outer limit of a "reasonable period of time" for poised entry is the time it would take a new entrant to enter the market. It will be important for regulators to establish an evidentiary foundation to determine how long new entry would take. If the regulator can establish that, absent the merger, the poised entrant would have effectively competed sooner than this outer limit, the regulator is well on its way to proving its prevention of competition case.

This raises two considerations. First, industries with greater barriers to entry pose additional difficulties for antitrust agencies in prevention of competition cases. For example, where a new entrant would take 25 years to effectively enter (in a large mining case, for example) the future-looking task may be complicated by numerous factors that could muddy a 25-year predictive exercise. Second, it is vital for parties to a merger to understand what the barriers to entry in their respective industries are. It would be prudent for parties to an at-risk merger to seek objective, outside advice on the barriers to entry and whether the merger could be offside antitrust legislation.

3. A Proper Evidentiary Record is Key

Finally, Tervita reaffirms the vital importance of the evidentiary record in merger cases. The Tribunal, as affirmed by the FCA, relied on various internal documents from both the vendors and Tervita to establish, for example, that the bioremediation business of the vendors would have failed within a year and that the entrance of Babkirk into the secure landfill market in NEBC would have had a material effect on prices. When a potential anticompetitive merger is being investigated, it should be expected that antitrust regulators will take all possible steps to preserve, collect and use the internal documents of the subjects of the investigation.

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Nikiforos Iatrou
Scott McGrath
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

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 Mondaq.com’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.

Disclaimer

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.

Registration

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 unsubscribe@mondaq.com 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.

Cookies

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.

Links

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.

Mail-A-Friend

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.

Security

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 webmaster@mondaq.com.

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 EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

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 enquiries@mondaq.com.

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