Canada: The Canadian Competition Bureau’s Attempt to Halt Beer Merger Goes Flat

Last Updated: March 11 2008
Article by Mark C. Katz


On February 1, 2007, Labatt Brewing Company Limited announced its intention to buy all of the outstanding units of Lakeport Brewing Income Fund and thereby acquire the operations of Lakeport Brewing Limited Partnership. Labatt is the second largest brewer in Canada. Lakeport beer is marketed as a lower-priced alternative to other brands of beer.

On February 12, 2007, Labatt and Lakeport filed a "long-form" notification with the Competition Bureau pursuant to the Competition Act's pre-merger notification provisions. The filing of a long-form notification triggers a 42-day waiting period during which the parties to the merger are prohibited from implementing their transaction. Under Canada's merger control system, however, expiry of the 42-day statutory waiting period does not represent substantive clearance. Instead, the Bureau's substantive review runs on a separate and parallel track that is governed by different (and non-binding) timeframes (called "service standard periods"). For example, the Bureau normally takes longer than the 42-day waiting period to review transactions that raise significant competition issues. (Bureau guidelines state that such a merger may take up to five months to review, with no guarantee that it may not be longer.)

In this instance, the 42-day waiting period triggered by the parties' long-form filing was set to expire on March 26, 2007. The Bureau advised the parties that it would not complete its review by that date because it believed the transaction raised potentially significant issues (e.g., the Bureau characterized Lakeport as a "maverick" in the market whose removal might prevent or lessen competition substantially). Labatt nevertheless proposed to close the Lakeport acquisition shortly after the expiry of the waiting period. However, Labatt also offered to implement a "hold separate" arrangement that would delay integration of the Lakeport business for 30 days to allow the Bureau more time to complete its review. The Bureau declined to accept this proposal and, on March 22, 2007, filed an application with the Competition Tribunal for a temporary injunction under section 100.

The Tribunal's Decision

In order to obtain relief under section 100, the Bureau must demonstrate that:

  1. it is "on inquiry" (i.e., formally investigating the competitive effects of the proposed transaction);
  2. it requires more time to complete its review of the transaction; and
  3. its failure to prevent a party to the merger from taking "an action" (e.g., closing the transaction) would "substantially impair the ability of the Tribunal to remedy the effect of the proposed merger on competition ... because the action would be difficult to reverse."

The central issue before the Tribunal was whether allowing the transaction to close would "impair" the Tribunal's ability to remedy the effect on competition post-merger if the Labatt/Lakeport transaction were successfully challenged.

The Bureau argued that, because the Act provides the Tribunal with fewer remedies where a merger has already been completed, permitting the acquisition to close would impair the Tribunal's ability to order an appropriate post-merger remedy. The Bureau also argued that, once a merger has been closed, it is often difficult to achieve an effective remedy after the acquired assets have been integrated into the operations of the acquirer. Labatt and Lakeport responded that there was no evidence to demonstrate that the merger would impair the Tribunal's ability to order dissolution or divestiture, especially given that they had offered to comply with a hold separate arrangement of the type that the Tribunal had endorsed in the past.

Justice Phelan of the Tribunal held that the relevant question to be answered under section 100 was whether allowing the transaction to close would substantially impair the Tribunal's ability to order a post-merger remedy that would "restore competition to the point at which it can no longer be said to be substantially less than it was before the merger." He concluded that the Bureau had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Tribunal's remedial authority would be impaired and dismissed the Bureau's application. Significantly, Justice Phelan did not consider it necessary to order that a hold separate arrangement be put in place. Indeed, he held that the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to impose a hold separate arrangement under section 100.

As a result, Labatt was permitted to close its acquisition without any restraint on its ability to integrate the two businesses, which it proceeded to do on March 29, 2007.

The Appeal

The Bureau appealed the Tribunal's decision to the Federal Court of Appeal ("FCA" or "the Court"). It argued that Justice Phelan had misinterpreted section 100 by imposing too high an evidentiary burden in order to obtain relief. Essentially, the Bureau claimed that the granting of an interim injunction under section 100 should be virtually automatic unless the merging parties can show that the Bureau's application constitutes an abuse of process.

The Court rejected the Bureau's argument in a decision released on January 22, 2008, stating that "[w]e do not agree that Parliament intended the role of the Tribunal to be so limited." The Court held that Justice Phelan had formulated the applicable legal test correctly, and was reasonable in concluding that the Bureau had not satisfied this test. The Court also elaborated on the types of evidence that would be relevant on a section 100 application to establish the need for an interim order (e.g., an understanding of the nature of the potential lessening of competition allegedly caused by the merger); the kinds of remedies the Bureau might seek; and the potential effectiveness of these remedies with and without an interim order in place.


When section 100 was amended in 1999, the prevailing view was that the threshold for relief was relatively low. In particular, it was thought that the prospect of post-merger integration ("scrambling the eggs") would be sufficient in most cases for the Tribunal to hold that the failure to issue an interim injunction would substantially impair its remedial authority. The FCA's decision confirms that this view was incorrect and that the threshold for relief under section 100 is higher than the Bureau would prefer, and indeed more onerous than many in the Canadian competition bar had thought.

In theory, this represents an improvement in the relative bargaining position of merging parties with respect to the Bureau's. In practice, the impact of the decision should not be overstated:

  • In the large majority of cases, the Bureau is able to complete its review in a timely fashion. (According to the Bureau, it completes 90 percent of its merger reviews within 10 days of receiving a completed notification filing.) Therefore, the issue in the Labatt case arises only in a handful of instances at most.
  • It is still rare for the acquiring party to close a transaction knowing that it faces the potential risk of a challenge within three years of closing and the prospect of forced divestitures within a short time frame at fire-sale prices. Labatt had its own particular reasons for pressing to close the Lakeport acquisition in this instance, even in the absence of Bureau clearance; it had apparently lost out on a prior acquisition opportunity because of the time it took the Bureau to complete its review and was not inclined to repeat the experience. That set of circumstances is unlikely to be duplicated often, if at all.
  • Where international transactions are concerned, the Canadian part of the merger review is rarely a critical "gating" item, particularly if there are serious issues to be resolved. In those instances, the U.S. and EC reviews usually extend well beyond the Bureau's review, and closing will not take place in any event until those authorities are on side.
  • In cases that raise particularly serious issues, the Bureau may be prepared to proceed straight to a substantive merger challenge, even within the 42-day waiting period, and seek an injunction to prevent closing pursuant to the usual criteria (i.e., determination of a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued, and balance of convenience).

It also must be recognized that the FCA's decision has not rendered section 100 a "dead letter". It is still open to the Bureau to obtain a temporary injunction provided that it leads the necessary evidence, which it is now more likely to do since its onus of proof has been clarified. Indeed, less than a week after the Labatt decision was released, the Bureau applied for a section 100 order in another merger involving scrap metal processors. Although much of the supporting materials were redacted, it is evident from what is on the public record that the Bureau took the FCA's decision to heart and directly addressed the issue of whether allowing the transaction to proceed would impair the effectiveness of the remedies it might subsequently ask the Tribunal to grant.

One possible result of the Labatt decision is that the Bureau may now be more willing to entertain the notion of interim hold separate agreements pending completion of its substantive review. The Bureau has publicly stated in the past that it would not normally agree to allow parties to close on the basis of an interim hold separate agreement (and, of course, it rejected that option in Labatt). However, this position may soften in light of what is now a tougher burden to obtain a section 100 injunction. As a possible signal of things to come, the Bureau eventually agreed to an interim hold separate arrangement in the scrap metal processor merger, thus obviating the need to proceed with the section 100 application (although the acquiree was apparently in financial difficulty).

Of course, another possibility is that the Bureau could try to erase any negative consequences stemming from its defeat by seeking amendments to the Act that would either:

  1. give it substantially more time to review transactions; or
  2. alter the evidentiary threshold under section 100 to make it easier to secure injunctive relief.

The Bureau has responded to other litigation setbacks in the past by proposing legislative amendments and could do so again. Should that happen, the Labatt case may turn out to be nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory for merging parties in Canada.

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.

Mark C. Katz
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.