Canada: Significant Developments In Canadian Competition Law And Policy — The Year In Review (June 2007 To June 2008)

Significant developments in Canadian competition and foreign investment law and policy over the past year include:

  • the formation of a policy panel to recommend potential amendments to Canada's Competition Act;

  • revisions to the Immunity Program and the introduction of a draft leniency program;

  • the Minister of Industry's first-ever refusal to permit the acquisition of control of a Canadian business by a foreign investor under the Investment Canada Act;

  • the Commissioner of Competition's two losses in preliminary battles related to her inquiry into the Labatt/Lakeport beer merger; and

  • the decisions of the British Columbia Supreme Court and Québec Superior Court denying certification in proposed class actions related to an alleged price-fixing conspiracy affecting Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM).


A. Legislative Developments

In July 2007, a Competition Policy Review Panel (the Panel) was appointed to review the Competition Act (the Act) and the Investment Canada Act (Canada's foreign investment legislation). In October 2007, the Panel released a consultation paper that sought feedback on changes to the Act that were made to promote Canadian competitiveness and productivity, including changes to the merger review process. The Panel's recommendations, scheduled for release at the end of June 2008, could form the basis for legislative reform.

In June 2007, a new merger review regime under the Canada Transportation Act took effect for all transportation undertakings. The regime requires: a) pre-approval by the Federal Cabinet and the Commissioner of Competition for proposed transactions in the transportation sector that raise public interest issues, and b) a Competition Act filing and/or the expiry of applicable statutory waiting periods under the Competition Act and/or the Investment Canada Act.

Bill C-454 is a Private Member's Bill that proposes significant changes to the Act. Many of the proposed changes were introduced as government-endorsed amendments in an earlier session of Parliament under Bill C-19. These include permitting the Commissioner to conduct industry sector inquiries; significant administrative monetary penalties for abuse of dominant position (beyond those in place for domestic airlines) and repealing the criminal predatory pricing and price discrimination provisions. One additional proposed change, not included in the prior government bill, would fundamentally change Canada's conspiracy law by removing the requirement to prove that any agreement or arrangement lessened competition "unduly," and increasing the potential maximum fine from $10 million to $25 million per count. The Bill passed second reading in the House of Commons in April 2008 and has been referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.

B. Competition Bureau Policies

In October 2007, the Bureau released a revised Immunity Bulletin and Frequently Asked Questions (the key policy documents that form Canada's Immunity Program). These were followed in April 2008 with the release of a draft Sentencing and Leniency Bulletin. Some of the key changes in the Bureau's revised Immunity Program documents include:

  • The standard for exclusion from the Immunity Program has been changed from an instigation or sole beneficiary test to a coercion test (similar to the test applied by the European Commission).

  • Immunity applicants will no longer have to provide restitution to qualify. The Bureau will leave that function to plaintiffs in civil suits.

  • Revocation of immunity for non-disclosure of offences will be limited to intentional non-disclosure or lack of due diligence.

  • The Bureau will not pursue proactive immunity (i.e., contacting individuals who may have useful information with an offer of immunity in exchange for co-operation).

The draft Sentencing and Leniency Bulletin sets out the Bureau's approach to various aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered in sentencing for criminal conduct and also sets out the declining scale of discounts for those who have lost the race for immunity but wish to co-operate fully with authorities. Under the draft Leniency Bulletin, the second-in would be eligible for a discount of up to 50 per cent and the third-in and subsequent candidates would be eligible for a discount of up to 30 per cent depending upon a number of factors, including full co-operation.

The Bureau also released revised policies on the treatment of confidential information under the Act, the Bureau's approach to issues related to seeking and executing search warrants, and draft bulletins on multi-level marketing and corporate compliance programs.


A. Beer Market

In January 2008, the Commissioner suffered two losses in court battles related to the acquisition of Lakeport by Labatt.

First, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) dismissed the Commissioner's appeal of a March 2007 Tribunal order that denied the Commissioner an interim order to delay closing of Labatt's acquisition of Lakeport Brewing for 30 days to permit the Commissioner to complete her review.1 Section 100 of the Act provides a mechanism for the Commissioner to seek an interim order where, "in the Commissioner's opinion, more time is required to complete the inquiry," and where, in the absence of an order, an action could be taken that would substantially impair the ability of the Tribunal to remedy the effect of the proposed merger.

While the Commissioner lost the appeal, the FCA expressly confirmed that the Commissioner need not demonstrate that the proposed transaction will lead to a substantial lessening of competition in order to be granted an interim order to delay closing under Section 100 of the Act. Rather, the Commissioner need only demonstrate that, without an interim order, the Tribunal's remedial powers would be substantially impaired. The FCA's decision does not preclude a substantive merger challenge of the Labatt/Lakeport transaction by the Commissioner at any time within three years of the completion of the transaction. Merging parties that proceed to close despite the Bureau's expression of substantive concerns assume a significant risk that the Bureau will challenge the transaction.

The Commissioner's second loss came when the Federal Court struck down orders for the production of documents and information issued under Section 11 of the Act against Moosehead and Labatt/Lakeport, finding that representations made by the Commissioner in her ex parte application had been "misleading, inaccurate and incomplete in several material respects."2 While the Federal Court's decision is limited to the particular facts of the Labatt/Lakeport case, its strongly worded message encouraged the Commissioner to take a closer look at the Section 11 orders. The Commissioner and deputy Minister of Justice have appointed a special advisor to review the standard of disclosure required in ex parte applications and the Bureau's Section 11 process. The special advisor's report is due to be submitted to the Commissioner and Deputy Minister of Justice by the beginning of June 2008.

In other merger matters, Registered Consent Agreements were filed to resolve issues with respect to mergers and joint ventures in the paint, grain and communications industries, among others.

B. Foreign Investment

In May 2008, Industry Minister Jim Prentice blocked the proposed $1.3-billion acquisition of the Information Systems Business of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. (MDA) by Alliant Techsystems Inc. (ATK) because he was not satisfied that it was likely to be of "net benefit to Canada." Alliant had applied for the Minister's approval pursuant to the Investment Canada Act, which provides that where a non-Canadian (such as ATK) proposes to acquire control of a substantial Canadian business (such as MDA) the non-Canadian must file an Application for Review with the Minister of Industry. The transaction can only be consummated if the Minister is satisfied that the proposed transaction is "likely to be of net benefit to Canada." It is generally accepted that the Minister has broad discretion in determining net benefit pursuant to the Act.

This is the first rejection by a minister of a transaction that does not raise Canadian cultural or heritage concerns since the inception of the Investment Canada Act in 1985. One can only speculate as to why Minister Prentice rejected the transaction, because the review of the application is conducted pursuant to very strict confidentiality provisions. According to news reports, ATK's desire to buy the satellite imaging and space business from MDA had sparked fierce opposition related to fears of loss of Canadian control over what is perceived as a key piece of Canadian space technology. It appears the principal motivation for Minister Prentice's rejection, then, is related to Canadian national security concerns.

There is no reason to believe the rejection of the MDA deal will have a significant chilling effect on foreign investment in Canada, although the rejection does raise questions about transactions that involve the transfer of important intellectual property to non-Canadians.


The Commissioner has declared domestic conspiracies and bid-rigging a top enforcement priority. While there was news of several searches and other investigative activity, no significant contested domestic cartel cases took place in Canada over the past year. Similarly, no contested proceedings related to international cartels in Canada took place in the past year. Fines as a result of negotiated pleas were imposed against participants in international price-fixing cartels related to rubber and rubber chemical products, isostatic graphite and graphite electrodes.

As well, numerous pleas, convictions and charges were laid with respect to deceptive marketing and telemarketing, an area of continued focus by the Bureau and Director of Public Prosecutions.


Class proceedings for competition claims continued to increase in number in Canada and to closely follow actions launched in the US. Proposed class proceedings have commenced, or are currently ongoing, with respect to chocolate products, air cargo surcharges, flash memory, static random access memory (SRAM), liquid crystal display (LCD), hydrogen peroxide, various rubber and rubber chemical products, and electrical carbon products.

A. Class Certification Denied In B.C. And Québec DRAM Price-Fixing Cases

In May and June 2008 respectively, defendants in price-fixing class actions in British Columbia and Québec were successful in resisting certification of class actions involving DRAM products, which are memory chips used in personal computers and a variety of other "tech" products. The defendants had been found guilty of price-fixing in the US and had paid significant amounts to settle US class actions brought on behalf of direct purchasers of DRAM products. Although the result in these two cases was the same, the approach of the two courts with respect to what constitutes a common issue indicates a potentially significant divergence in these two provinces in proposed class actions involving allegations of price-fixing.

The B.C. Decision

In Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd v. Infineon Technologies et al,3 the plaintiffs sought to certify a class predominantly made up of indirect purchasers of products containing DRAM. They did not buy DRAM chips from any of the defendants. Rather, they bought computers and other products that contained DRAM chips sold to others higher up the distribution chain, the price of which might have been increased by the admitted conspiracy among the defendants.

The court declined to certify the case as a class action because the plaintiff failed to establish that liability to the class members was a common issue. Specifically, the plaintiff did not demonstrate a "class-wide basis of establishing that any overcharge (in the price of DRAM) filtered down and was borne by direct and indirect purchasers of DRAM products in B.C."4 Since liability to class members would have had to have been determined on an individual basis, the court concluded that a class action would not be the "preferable procedure" as required by the B.C. Class Proceedings Act. The court also found that Pro-Sys would not be a suitable representative plaintiff, not only because it could not show a class-wide basis for establishing liability, but also because it was in a conflict of interest with other class members at different levels of the distribution chain.

The Pro-Sys decision highlights the difficulties faced by plaintiffs seeking to certify class price-fixing class actions on behalf of indirect purchasers. Because the class members did not purchase directly from the defendants, establishing liability requires common proof that prices were increased to direct purchasers and that those increases were passed on throughout the distribution chain. In the US, the Supreme Court addressed those difficulties by ruling that as a policy matter, indirect purchasers are precluded from bringing price-fixing cases in US Federal Courts.5 In Canada, courts have not yet ruled out the possibility of certifying a class of indirect purchasers in a price-fixing case, but have not done so thus far.6

The Québec Decision

On June 17, 2008, the Québec Superior Court also denied certification in Option Consommateurs v. Infineon Technologies et al,7 but on different grounds.

The Defendants filed motions to dismiss the certification motion on the grounds that Québec courts do not have jurisdiction to hear the case; these motions were heard at the same time as the certification motion. The Court granted the jurisdictional motion, essentially because the Plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to establish the jurisdiction of Québec courts over the class action. Pursuant to Québec law, plaintiffs have the onus to demonstrate that a "prejudice was suffered in Québec" (among other things) for Québec courts to assume jurisdiction over foreign defendants. In his reasons, Mr. Justice Mongeau held that all the relevant facts occurred outside Québec, including that the Plaintiff had purchased her computer in Ontario. Relying on a series of precedents from the Québec Court of Appeal, Mr. Justice Mongeau held that the Plaintiff did not allege any facts that would lead him to conclude that a prejudice was "suffered in Québec." As a result, Mr. Justice Mongeau held that Québec courts did not have jurisdiction over this case and that the motion should be dismissed.

Although the Court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, it also assessed the criteria for certification, which it viewed differently than the B.C. Court had in Pro-Sys. In particular, the Québec Superior Court held that there were sufficient common issues, even though the class comprises direct and indirect purchasers, and even though suppliers used various distribution chains for the different products they manufactured. In other words, Mr. Justice Mongeau did not follow the same approach as the B.C. court in the DRAM case, which declined to certify class actions on behalf of indirect purchasers on the grounds that liability could not be established on a collective basis.

The Québec Court went on to indicate that it would have denied certification because the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie cause of action under Canadian law and because the plaintiff could not adequately represent the interests of the members of the proposed class. The Court held that guilty pleas in the US were not sufficient to establish a violation of the Canadian Competition Act because there is no requirement under US law to demonstrate that a price-fixing agreement led to an "undue" lessening of competition (as there is in Canada). The Québec Court also found, as did the B.C. Court, that the proposed representative plaintiff was in a conflict of interest in representing the interests of direct and indirect purchasers.


1. Canada (Commissioner of Competition ) v. Labatt Brewing Co. [2007] C.C.T.D. No. 5 (Comp. Trib.), appeal dismissed (2008), 289 D.L.R. (4th) 500 (Fed. C.A.)

2. Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. Labatt Brewing Co. [2008] F.C.J. No. 127 (F.C.T.D.) at paragraph 36.

3. [2008] B.C.J No. 831 (B.C.S.C.)

4. [2008] B.C.J No. 831 (B.C.S.C.) at paragraph 149.

5. Illinois Brick v. Illinois, 431 US 720 (1977)

6. See Chadha v. Bayer (2003), 63 O.R. (3d) 22 (Ont. C.A.) and Price v. Panasonic Canada Inc. (2002), 22 C.P.C.(5th) 382 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)

7. Option Consommateurs v. Infineon Technologies et al., Superior Court of Québec, District of Montréal Court file number 500-06—000251-047, Reasons dated June 17, 2008.

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 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.