Canada: Canadian Competition Law 2006: The Year In Review

Last Updated: February 21 2007

In 2006, competition law in Canada continued to evolve through policy change, enforcement and litigation. Canadaís Competition Bureau (the "Bureau") held consultations and released new policy documents on merger remedies, corporate compliance programs and abuse of dominance. 20 years after the introduction of the civil abuse of dominance provisions, the Federal Court of Appeal issued its first decision interpreting those provisions. Criminal enforcement efforts continued to focus on domestic and international cartels, cooperation with other enforcement agencies through the International Competition Network and combating deceptive marketing practices. In the area of private enforcement, the Competition Tribunal released the first decision in a case where the applicant was a private party.

Legislative and Policy Developments


In 2006, new legislation was introduced aimed at telecommunication service providers and misleading representations. The Bureau also released several new policy documents related to merger remedies, corporate compliance programs, abuse of dominance in the telecommunications sector and immunity from prosecution.

Bill C-41

In December 2006, the Conservative Government introduced its first proposed amendments to the Competition Act (the "Act") aimed solely at abuse of dominant position in the telecommunications sector. Bill C-41 , if passed, provides for administrative monetary penalties ("AMPís") of up to $15 million for telecommunication service providers found by the Competition Tribunal (the "Tribunal") to have abused their dominant position. The proposed amendments add a second sector-specific penalty for abuse of dominant position and follows the release in the Fall of 2006 (for public comment) of the Bureauís draft Information Bulletin on the Abuse of Dominance Provisions as Applied to the Telecommunications Industry. At present, only airlines can be ordered to pay an AMP. All others found by the Tribunal to have abused their dominant position are subject to orders to cease the offending conduct but not to payment of AMPs. Bill C-41 does not introduce many of the amendments proposed in Bill C-19 tabled under the previous Liberal Government. In particular, Bill C-19, if passed, would have provided the Tribunal with the power to impose AMPs on any firm found to have abused a dominant position, not just airlines and telecommunication service providers.

Bill C-299

In May 2006, a private memberís bill was introduced in the House of Commons seeking amendments to the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, and the Competition Act. Bill C-299 would amend the criminal and civil misleading representation provisions of the Act to include an offence for anyone who "seeks to obtain personal information from a third party by fraud, false pretence or fraudulent personation" or promoting a product by fraud, false pretence or fraudulent personation. The Bill has received second reading and is currently before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Information Bulletins

Merger Remedies

In September 2006, the Bureau released a new Information Bulletin on Merger Remedies. The Bulletin emphasizes the Bureauís preference for:

  • structural over behavioural remedies;
  • the use of "fix-it first" remedies where the parties remedy competition issues on a voluntary basis before closing the proposed transaction without the need for a consent agreement or litigated solution;
  • a short initial sale period of 3-6 months;
  • the use of "crown jewels" in appropriate cases where a divestiture requires a trustee sale period.

The Bureau has also indicated that it intends to release an outline of a model consent agreement as an appendix to the Remedies Bulletin within the next few months.

Corporate Compliance Programs

In June 2006, the Bureau initiated a consultation program to update its 1997 Information Bulletin on Corporate Compliance Programs. Comments on the Bulletin were due by September 22, 2006 with a report on the consultations expected to be released within the next few months.

Abuse of Dominance

Following the release of a consultation report in March 2006, the Bureau released (for consideration) a draft Bulletin on Abuse of Dominance in Telecommunications in September 2006. The draft Bulletin is the latest in a series of sector specific guidelines on abuse of dominance which include guidelines specific to the airline and grocery sectors. The draft Bulletin is limited to the Bureauís approach in reviewing complaints related to the abuse of dominant position provisions in the de-regulated telecommunications sector where the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission has made a determination to refrain from regulating such conduct.

Immunity Program FAQ's

In October 2005, the Bureau issued Responses to Frequently Asked Questions ("FAQ") about its successful Immunity Program. The new FAQ revises the version released in 2003 and addresses in greater detail the immunity application process and timelines. In February 2006, the Bureau released a consultation paper on various other issues arising under the Immunity Program including confidentiality, oral applications for immunity, the applicant's role in the offence, revocation, restitution and the potential creation of a formal leniency program. A revised draft of the Immunity Program Bulletin is anticipated in 2007 to address these issues.

International Agreements

In May 2006, the Bureau signed a cooperation agreement with the Korean Fair Trade Commission formalizing notification, cooperation and coordination of enforcement activities, exchange of information and avoidance of conflicts. The Bureau has similar agreements in place with competition agencies in Australia, New Zealand, Chile and the United Kingdom.


2006 saw continued merger activity in the grain and broadcasting industries as well as the continued use of registered consent agreements to resolve merger cases.

Grain Industry

Port terminal grain handling services in Vancouver generated merger developments in 2006. In August 2005, Agricore United ("AU") filed a section 106 application based on an alleged change in circumstances to rescind a consent agreement entered into in 2002 which required a divestiture of a port terminal in Vancouver. After two weeks of hearing, the application was discontinued by AU and shortly thereafter a trustee was appointed to handle the divestiture. No sale has yet been announced. In November 2005, the Commissioner issued an application challenging a joint venture between Saskatchewan Wheat Pool ("SWP") and James Richardson International ("JRI") in relation to their Vancouver terminal operations. A consent interim hold separate order is in effect pending the outcome of the application which will include the participation of four separate intervenors granted leave by the Tribunal. In November 2006, SWP announced a hostile takeover bid for the shares of AU, which is also expected to raise competition issues.


In September 2006, a Registered Consent Interim Agreement was registered with the Tribunal with respect to the proposed acquisition of CHUM Limited by Bell Globemedia pending the outcome of the Commissionerís review of the proposed transaction. The interim agreement provides for a hold separate voting trust pending the resolution or application to the Tribunal with respect to the transaction.

In June 2006, a Registered Consent Agreement was filed resolving issues surrounding the television ratings services of BBM Canada and Neilsen Media Research. The agreement provides for an independent audit to determine the choice of processes and methodology to be used by the new company and a protocol for the measurement of viewing audiences in new markets in Canada.

Burns Lake

In December 2004, a consent agreement filed with the Tribunal required the divestiture of two saw mills in Burns Lake, B.C. to remedy the effects of the merger between West Fraser Timber Company Limited and Weldwood of Canada Limited. In February 2005, Burns Lake Native Development Corporation, which owns a minority stake in the saw mills to be divested, launched a section 106 application to rescind the consent agreement, relying on its standing as a person "directly affected" by the transaction. In the first Notice of Reference ever brought before the Tribunal, the Commissioner asked the Tribunal to interpret the meaning of "directly affected person" in section 106 (among other issues). In March 2006, after Burns Lake unsuccessfully challenged the Commissioner's ability to bring the reference during an ongoing application, the Tribunal held that in order to be "directly affected" within the meaning of section 106, a party must experience first-hand a significant, definite impact on a right which relates to competition. Following these reasons, the section 106 application was dismissed on April 3, 2006.


On March 1, 2006, a consent agreement was filed requiring the divestiture of assets used in fine paper sales in Alberta and British Columbia to resolve issues arising out of PaperlinXí acquisition of Cascades Fine Papers. The consent agreement appointed a hold separate monitor until the divestiture obligations are fulfilled. The Bureau issued Technical Backgrounders with respect to the acquisition of Maytag by Whirlpool in the appliance sector, the acquisition of ID Biomedical Corporation by GlaxoSmithKline Inc. in the pharmaceutical sector, and the acquisition of control of Matťriaux Coupal Inc. by RONA Inc. in the home improvement sector.

Reviewable Practice Cases

Canada Pipe

In June 2006, the Federal Court of Appeal ("FCA") released its first decision on the abuse of dominant position provisions. In Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. Canada Pipe Company Ltd. , the Commissioner alleged that a loyalty rebate program offered by a division of Canada Pipe to its distributors constituted an anti-competitive act by a dominant firm which substantially lessened competition. The Tribunal held that Canada Pipe had sufficient market power to exercise market control in all relevant markets (i.e. was in a dominant position), but its loyalty rebate program did not constitute a practice of anti-competitive acts and did not have the requisite negative effect on competition to constitute abuse of dominance.

On appeal, the FCA concluded that the Tribunal erred in its effects-based approach to determining whether the loyalty program constituted a practice of anti-competitive acts. The FCA held that the focus of the inquiry to identify an anti-competitive act is the intended effect on a competitor, not competition generally. The FCA also held that the Tribunal erred in its analytical approach with respect to whether the loyalty program has had, or is likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially. The FCA adopted a comparative and relative analysis which assesses the effect of the alleged anti-competitive act with reference to the past and present actual effects and likely future effects. The FCA held that the Tribunalís analysis of anti-competitive effects incorrectly made an absolute evaluation of the state of the market. The FCA sent the case back to the Tribunal for reconsideration and it remains to be seen whether the adoption of a different test will lead the Tribunal to a different conclusion.

Civil Deceptive Marketing Practices

2006 continued to demonstrate the Commissionerís enforcement priority against deceptive marketing practices. In September 2006, the Tribunal issued a ten year prohibition order and ordered the owners of diet clinics in Quebec to pay $70,000 in administrative monetary penalties ("AMP") for misleading representations about a weight loss product called Cellotherm. In July 2006, menís apparel retailer Grafton-Fraser agreed to pay a $1 million AMP and $200,000 in costs to settle allegations that it significantly inflated the regular price of certain garments resulting in an overstatement of the savings to consumers. A consent agreement was also filed against a resume distribution company in relation to misleading representations generally and about the regular selling price of its services. The consent agreement contained a 10 year prohibition, required the publication of corrective notices and payment of a $100,000 AMP. The Bureau and U.S. FTC continue to collaborate on "Fat Foe", a website that informs consumers about weight-loss scams.

Criminal Cases

Cartel cases and deceptive marketing continued to be enforcement priorities for the Commissioner in 2006.

There were no major contested criminal proceedings in Canada in 2006. The Bureau and the Attorney General obtained a fine in cartel investigations involving carbonless paper. Fines and jail sentences were also imposed for price maintenance and deceptive marketing practices.

International and Domestic Cartels

In June 2006, the Commissioner announced an investigation into alleged price fixing between competitors in the retail gasoline industry in local markets in Quebec. To date, no charges have been laid. In April 2006, the Bureau released its findings and conclusions of its examination of gasoline pricing in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, finding no evidence of anti-competitive behaviour. A record fine for a domestic conspiracy was imposed on Cascades Fine Papers Group Inc., Domtar Inc. and Unisource Canada, Inc. for price-fixing in carbonless paper . In August 2006, a prohibition order was entered against Sothebyís and its Canadian subsidiary to address the Bureauís concerns with respect to an international cartel to fix auction commission rates. In September 2006, taxi companies accused of an alleged conspiracy to lessen competition in bidding for taxi-service contracts in Newfoundland were ordered to be discharged after a preliminary inquiry. In October 2006, the Attorney General filed an application seeking to overturn the discharge and ultimately, to have the accused stand trial. International enforcement authorities continued to increase cooperation efforts through the International Competition Network.

On February 15, 2007, a Prohibition Order was issued by the Federal Court in Her Majesty the Queen v. Shamrock Maintenance and Hotshot Services Ltd. et al arising from conduct of several auto body businesses in Fort McMurray, Alberta directed toward offences under sections 45(1)(c) (conspiracy) and 61(1)(a) (price maintenance) of the Competition Act. According to the Agreed Statement of Facts filed with the Court virtually all of auto body repair shops in Fort McMurray agreed to increase their labour rates for repair services and sent a notice to insurance companies and customers announcing the increase in which they referred to themselves as the Fort McMurray Auto Body Association. Their collective activity (aided no doubt by their decision to publicize it) resulted in a criminal investigation by the Competition Bureau in which the Bureau used both search warrants and section 11 orders.

The Prohibition Order, which the Respondents consented to, among other things requires them to discontinue association activities and inappropriate communications, to implement a Competition Act compliance policy and to publish a notice in a local paper outlining parts of the Order.

This case shows that even low-level unsophisticated domestic cartel activity is taken seriously by the Bureau. The Bureauís willingness to resolve the matter by way of a Prohibition Order, which does not result in a criminal conviction, was likely influenced by the fact that the Respondents did not conceal their activity and were not aware that they were doing anything improper.

Misleading Advertising and Telemarketing

In November 2006, David Stucky was acquitted on charges of false or misleading representations related to alleged unsolicited deceptive mailings promoting the purchase of shares in lottery tickets. In October 2006, a U.S. man was sentenced to 4 years in prison after pleading guilty to mass marketing fraud, including false and misleading misrepresentations under the Act. 2006 also saw the continuation of charges and prison sentences for deceptive telemarketing.


In September 2006, obstruction of justice charges were laid against an individual for alleged destruction of documents and obstruction of an investigation in the course of the execution of a search warrant in February and March 2006.

Private Actions

2006 saw the continuation of class action litigation for alleged cartel activity and a decision was released by the Tribunal relating to the first fully litigated private access refusal to deal application.

Rubber Class Actions: Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer ("EPDM") and Polychloroprene Rubber ("PCP")

National settlement agreements were approved in 2005, resolving class action proceedings in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec against DuPont Dow and Crompton/Uniroyal and their affiliates with respect to allegations that the defendants conspired to fix the price of EPDM, a synthetic rubber compound used in seals, tubing, belts, motor and oil additives. The settlement agreements provide for a payment by DuPont of $187,095, while Crompton agreed to pay $4.5 million. National settlement agreements were also approved in class action proceedings against DuPont Dow relating to PCP, a synthetic rubber used in the production of hoses and automobile parts. DuPont agreed to pay $566,274. The litigation with respect to both products is continuing against several other non-settling defendants.

The B-Filer Case

Since the 2002 introduction of private applications to the Tribunal in cases of exclusive dealing, tied selling, market restriction and refusal to deal, the Tribunal has granted leave in five of eleven cases but had yet to decide a case on the merits where the applicant was a private litigant. In December 2006, the Tribunal released its decision and reasons in a refusal to deal case where a private party applied for a remedial order. In B-Filer Inc. v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, a bank terminated banking services that the applicant claims are essential for it to operate an internet debit payment service. The Tribunalís decision is also the first decision since the amendment of the refusal to deal provision to require an applicant to demonstrate that the refusal to deal has had "an adverse effect on competition in a market." The Tribunal dismissed the application and held that B-Filer failed to establish that it was substantially affected in its business, unable to obtain adequate supply from another source because of insufficient competition, and that the refusal to deal was having, or was likely to have, an adverse effect on competition. With respect to "adverse effect on competition", the Tribunal held that it requires a similar approach to a determination of a substantial lessening of competition under the abuse of dominance provisions of the Act, the only difference being one of degree. An "adverse effect on competitioní is a lower threshold than a "substantial lessening of competition". Both such provisions require an analysis of market power in the presence of, and absent, the refusal to deal. B-Filer has appealed the Tribunalís decision to the Federal Court of Appeal.

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
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 youíve 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 Mondaq.comís content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltdís 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) Ė 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 ďno disclosureĒ 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 userís 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 friendís 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 usersí 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 userís 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 userís personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the ďYour ProfileĒ 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.