Canada: Canadian Competition Law 2004: The Year in Review

Last Updated: September 21 2005
Article by Randal Hughes and Barry Zalmanowitz

Originally Published May 2005

Significant developments in Canadian competition law in 2004 and early 2005 included the introduction of new legislation and Merger Enforcement Guidelines, an increase in private applications to the Competition Tribunal, and landmark U.S. cases with potential ramifications for parties in Canadian international cartel litigation.

Proposed Changes to the Competition Act

On November 2, 2004, Bill C-19 was tabled for first reading. The Bill proposes some significant amendments to the Competition Act (the "Act") including:

  • The imposition of significant administrative monetary penalties in certain abuse of dominance cases;
  • A substantial increase in the administrative monetary penalties currently in place for deceptive marketing practices;
  • The availability of restitution and freezing orders as remedies in misleading representation cases;
  • Repeal of the criminal pricing provisions, including price discrimination, geographic price discrimination, predatory pricing and promotional allowances;
  • Repeal of the airline specific amendments enacted in 2000.

Committee hearings on Bill C-19 are ongoing. Looking towards future changes to the Act, the Competition Bureau ("the Bureau") also held public consultations on the regulated conduct defence and the treatment of efficiencies in mergers.


Merger Enforcement Guidelines

After thirteen years, the Bureau released new merger enforcement guidelines ("MEG'S") in September 2004 which include the following changes:

  • Clarification of the Competition Bureau’s position on what constitutes a "significant interest" for merger review purposes;
  • An expanded definition of when a transaction may be considered to substantially "prevent" competition;
  • A modified price influence test;
  • A market definition analysis that focuses solely on demandside substitution;
  • Additional discussion of when a merger may raise the risk of co-ordination among competitors;
  • Identification of long-term exclusive contracts as a barrier to entry in a market;
  • A new discussion on counterveiling market power;
  • Modifications to the discussion on the treatment of efficiencies to conform with the outcome of the Superior Propane case.

Canadian Waste

In November 2004, after years of proceedings in the courts and the Competition Tribunal (the "Tribunal"), the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the latest attempt by Waste Management of Canada Corporation ("WMCC") to overturn the Tribunal’s Order requiring WMCC to divest its Ridge landfill site in Ontario. The Bureau originally obtained the Divestiture Order in 2001 to address concerns resulting from the 2000 merger of Canadian Waste Services Inc. (predecessor to WMCC) and Browning Ferris Industries Limited. The divestiture of these assets was completed in January, 2005.

Forestry Industry

In November 2004, the Commissioner filed a Hold Separate Agreement with respect to the proposed acquisition of Riverside Forest Products Limited by Tolko Industries Limited to preserve its ability to order appropriate relief pending completion of the Bureau’s review of the transaction. In another industry merger, a Consent Agreement was filed with the Tribunal at the beginning of December, 2004 permitting the merger between West Fraser Timber Company Limited and Weldwood of Canada Limited, with conditions.

Other Merger Matters

In October, the Commissioner obtained an order from the Competition Tribunal amending the time for divestiture of operations in Sherbrooke, Quebec set out in the 2003 Consent Agreement with respect to the RONA/Rona-Depot Inc. merger. In January 2005, RONA filed an application with the Competition Tribunal for an order under s. 106 to annul the Consent Agreement and relief from its divestiture obligation. The basis for the application is the existence of a new entrant in Sherbrooke. A hearing was held in April 2005 and a decision of the Tribunal is pending.

In the music recording business, the Bureau decided not to challenge a proposed joint venture between Sony Corporation and Bertelsmann AG, in spite of the continuing concentration in this industry. In communications, the Bureau approved the proposed acquisition of Microcell Telecommunications Inc. by Rogers Wireless Inc.

Reviewable Practice Cases

Canada Pipe

In February 2005, the Tribunal held that Canada Pipe did not abuse its dominant position with respect to a rebate program designed to promote exclusivity in the distribution of cast iron drain, waste and vent pipe, fittings and couplings. Canada Pipe marked the Commissioner’s first loss in an abuse of dominance application, and provides some encouragement for firms in Canada with significant market positions that they can engage in vigorous competitive activity without crossing the line to anti-competitive practices. Although the Tribunal held that Canada Pipe had sufficient market power to exercise market control (i.e. was dominant), and used tactics designed to promote exclusivity from distributors, the rebate program did not constitute a practice of anti-competitive acts or have the requisite negative effect on competition to constitute abuse. The Commissioner of Competition has appealed the Tribunal’s decision and Canada Pipe has launched a cross-appeal of the Tribunal’s finding of market power.

In May 2005, the Tribunal ordered the Commissioner to pay party costs in accordance with the Federal Court Tariff up to the date of Canada Pipe’s settlement offer and 150% of the Tariff amount thereafter. In addition, the reasonableness of Canada Pipe’s disbursements (including significant expert costs) is to be determined by an assessment officer.

Air Canada

In October 2004, approximately one month after Air Canada emerged from bankruptcy protection, the Commissioner and Air Canada settled their abuse of dominant position application, citing significant positive changes in Canada’s airline industry since the start of Tribunal proceedings in March 2001. The Tribunal had concluded in June 2003, in Phase I of the proceedings, that Air Canada had committed anti-competitive acts by operating below avoidable cost on two sample routes in Atlantic Canada. Phase II of the case would have determined whether Air Canada’s anti-competitive acts led to a substantial lessening of competition, and whether Air Canada had a legitimate business justification for operating below avoidable cost.

Other Abuse of Dominance Matters

The Bureau opened and quickly closed its inquiry into broadcasting rights to the 2010 and 2012 Olympic Games, finding no evidence that a Bell Globemedia/Rogers Media Inc. partnership would impair the ability of CBC/Radio-Canada’s ability to compete for the Games, and no evidence that competition would be substantially lessened. The Bureau also resolved complaints of abuse of dominance in the insurance industry related to increases in car, property and commercial insurance premiums in Canada, concluding that there was no evidence of abuse.

Civil Deceptive Marketing Practices

Sears Canada

On January 24, 2005, the Tribunal released its decision allowing the Commissioner’s application against Sears Canada with respect to tire advertisements run in 1999, in which Sears advertised prices discounted from its "regular" tire prices. The Tribunal concluded that those ads violated the "ordinary selling price" provisions of the Competition Act and issued a ten year prohibition order against Sears. The Tribunal declined to require Sears to issue corrective notices. In April 2005, Sears agreed to pay a $100,000 administrative monetary penalty (AMP’s) and $387,000 towards the Commissioner’s legal costs.

The Tribunal rejected Sears’ constitutional challenge to the validity of subsection 74.01(3) of the Act and held that Sears had not offered the tires at the advertised regular or ordinary price "…in good faith for a substantial period of time…". In rejecting Sears’ argument that its representations were not materially false or misleading, the Tribunal held that the existence (or not) of consumer harm was irrelevant.


In a consent agreement filed with the Tribunal in July, the sporting goods retailer agreed to pay an administrative monetary penalty of $1.2 million (12 times the maximum AMP available under the Act) and the costs of the Bureau’s inquiry totalling $500,000. It is anticipated that the Competition Bureau will increasingly seek to collect for the costs of its investigation, although its right to do so has not yet been dealt with by the Tribunal.

Other Deceptive Marketing Matters

In December 2004, the first case under the Bureau’s new internet surveillance and enforcement program called Project FairWeb was resolved when Performance Marketing entered a Consent Agreement and agreed to refund consumers the full value of their purchases for false claims about Zyapex and Dyapex Diet Patches.

Criminal Cases

There were no major contested criminal proceedings in Canada in 2004. The Bureau settled a price maintenance case against John Deere Limited, resulting in $1.19 million in rebates to Canadian consumers of certain John Deere lawn tractors. A phony invoice scam in the case led to jail time and fines for four individuals found to have violated the false or misleading representations provision of the Act. Six individuals and four telemarketing firms pled guilty to deceptive telemarketing contrary to s.52.1 of the Act and Global Online Systems Inc. ("GLOS") pleaded guilty to pyramid selling for health-related products marketed by Herbalife Canada Ltd.

International Cartels

International enforcement authorities continued to increase cooperation efforts through the International Competition Network. Crompton Corporation, in May 2004, paid the most significant fine ($9 million) for its part in an international pricefixing scheme in the supply of rubber chemicals. Fines and guilty pleas were also imposed on: VAW Carbon and Nippon Electrodes Company Limited for their role in a conspiracy to fix the price of cathode blocks; Morgan Crucible Company for obstruction of the Bureau’s investigation into allegations of price fixing in carbon brushes and current collectors used in public transit vehicles; and Morganite Canada Corp. (an affiliate of Morgan Crucible) for unknowingly implementing pricing directives from a foreign affiliate in Wales.

Industry Specific Examinations

The Competition Bureau conducted industry specific examinations with respect to allegations of collusion in the petroleum industry and allegations of collusion and abuse of dominance in the beef packing industry. The Competition Bureau concluded in March and April 2005 respectively that there was no evidence of collusion or abuse of dominant position in either industry. Although no official "inquiries" were opened, the Competition Bureau conducted extensive examinations as a result of complaints from consumers and concerns raised by parliamentary committees. The examinations sought voluntary information and cooperation from industry participants, rather than using the compulsory court-sanctioned investigation methods provided for in the Act.

Private Actions

Private Access to the Tribunal

In October 2004, the Federal Court of Appeal partially clarified the test for leave under subsection 103.1(7) of the Act for private parties to bring applications before the Tribunal. In the Barcode decision, the Federal Court of Appeal held that while the leave threshold is low, the applicant must demonstrate that it is directly and substantially affected in its business and the Tribunal must have reason to believe that the alleged practice could be subject to an order under that section. That means that applicants must adduce some evidence of all elements of the practice in question, including the requisite competitive effects. In November 2004, the Tribunal made an interim order against Harley Davidson, the respondent in a private refusal to deal application by Quinlan’s, requiring it to reinstate supply of some merchandise and parts pending the outcome of the application. This was the first interim order granted by the Tribunal in a private access application and may act as a precedent for future applications.

Eli Lilly v. Apotex

In June 2004, the Federal Court of Appeal shed new light on the interface between intellectual property rights and competition law. In a patent infringement action, one of the parties alleged that the assignment of a process patent constituted a conspiracy

Vitamins Class Actions

Settlements of the numerous vitamins class actions were approved by courts in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec in the spring of 2005. The settlements, to which most, but not all, defendants are parties, provide for the payment of $132.2 million, including interest and costs to be shared among direct purchasers, distributors, intermediate purchasers, consumers and plaintiffs class counsel.

U.S. Cases With Canadian Ramifications


The June 2004 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the F. Hoffman LaRoche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A. case is of significant interest to Canadian plaintiffs hoping to seek treble damages from foreign companies by suing in the United States. The Court held that foreign plaintiffs cannot sue foreign defendants in the United States under the domestic-injury exception to the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 ("FTAIA"), unless they are able to demonstrate that the price-fixing conduct of the defendants significantly and adversely affected customers within the United States and that the effect on the foreign plaintiffs is not independent of the adverse domestic effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stopped short of determining whether the foreign plaintiffs in Empagran satisfied the test. That issue was argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals in April 2005 and is on reserve.


Another 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision of interest to Canadian plaintiffs in civil actions and complainants in competition investigations is Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. The Court held that a complainant in a European Commission competition investigation had standing to apply to a U.S. court for production of documents in U.S. civil litigation that were relevant to the European complaint, even though the European Commission had declined to seek the information itself. The U.S. Supreme Court did not order production but remanded the issue back to the District Court, which ultimately denied the application for production in that case. Since Intel, plaintiffs in jurisdictions outside the U.S. (including Canada) have been using the Supreme Court’s reasons to seek disclosure of discovery materials in private actions in the U.S. or to seek orders for discovery from U.S. courts with varying degrees of success. 

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.

In association with
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.