On May 10, 2013, the senior deputy commissioner at the Mergers
Branch of the Competition Bureau (the Bureau) announced that the
Bureau is changing its information requirements for merger
transactions involving the upstream sector of the Canadian oil and
Effective immediately, the Bureau will no longer require
detailed information, including operator and user contact
information, in respect of field facilities such as batteries,
compressor stations or proprietary gathering systems when it
reviews merger transactions that involve only the upstream oil and
gas sector. Such information will, however, continue to be required
for mergers involving gas plants, midstream or downstream oil and
The Bureau's new approach is being implemented as a result
of a comprehensive internal review of its approach, in consultation
with industry experts and experienced lawyers in this area, in
response to industry and Canadian competition lawyer concerns
relating to the amount of information required for upstream oil and
gas merger reviews. In recent years, more detailed submissions and
information regarding field facilities had been required in
applications for approval under the Competition Act.
As a result of the Bureau's new approach, the
Competition Act approval process in upstream merger
transactions should become simpler and more efficient, with respect
to both the preparation of the required Competition Act
filings and the Bureau's review of such filings. This should
facilitate the planning of merger transactions in the upstream oil
and gas industry, and make the timing of the Competition
Act approval process for such transactions more
1 Announcement made by Kelley McKinnon at the
Competition Bureau/Canadian Bar Association Competition Law
Section's annual Mergers Roundtable.
Norton Rose Group
Norton Rose Group is a leading international legal practice.
We offer a full business law service to many of the world's
pre-eminent financial institutions and corporations from offices in
Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, Africa, the Middle East, Latin
America and Central Asia.
Knowing how our clients' businesses work and
understanding what drives their industries is fundamental to us.
Our lawyers share industry knowledge and sector expertise across
borders, enabling us to support our clients anywhere in the world.
We are strong in financial institutions; energy; infrastructure,
mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and
pharmaceuticals and life sciences.
We have more than 2900 lawyers operating from 43 offices in
Abu Dhabi, Almaty, Amsterdam, Athens, Bahrain, Bangkok, Beijing,
Bogotá, Brisbane, Brussels, Calgary, Canberra, Cape Town,
Caracas, Casablanca, Dubai, Durban, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hong Kong,
Johannesburg, London, Melbourne, Milan, Montréal, Moscow,
Munich, Ottawa, Paris, Perth, Piraeus, Prague, Québec, Rome,
Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto and Warsaw; and from
associate offices in Dar es Salaam, Ho Chi Minh City and
Norton Rose Group comprises Norton Rose LLP, Norton Rose
Australia, Norton Rose Canada LLP, Norton Rose South Africa
(incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc), and their respective
On January 1, 2012, Macleod Dixon joined Norton Rose
Group adding strength and depth in Canada, Latin America and around
the world. For more information please visit
Norton Rose will join forces with Fulbright &
Jaworski L.L.P on June 1, 2013, creating Norton Rose Fulbright a
global legal practice with significant depth of expertise across
the USA, Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, Africa, the Middle East,
Latin America and Central Asia.
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.
In the federal budget released on February 11, 2014, the Canadian government has advanced a proposal to give the Competition Bureau additional powers to prohibit what it refers to as unjustified geographic price discrimination ..
As outlined in our November 2013 bulletin, plaintiffs in competition class actions recently won a major victory when the Supreme Court of Canada, in a trilogy of cases released together, permitted indirect purchaser claims while confirming that defendants could not assert passing on defences against direct purchasers.