Canada: Federal Court Of Appeal Dismisses Challenge To Competition Tribunal Ruling In Toronto Real Estate Board

Last Updated: January 30 2018
Article by Sandy Walker and Simon Kupi

The Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) has confirmed a Competition Tribunal decision concerning the control of Multiple Listing Service (MLS) data by the Toronto Real Estate Board (TREB), delivering a victory to the Commissioner of Competition in the long-running dispute.

In its December 2017 decision in Toronto Real Estate Board v Canada (Commissioner of Competition),1 the Court dismissed TREB's appeal of a 2016 Competition Tribunal (Tribunal) decision concluding that TREB policies preventing its member-brokers from accessing certain MLS property listing data for their virtual office websites constituted an abuse of TREB's dominant position over residential real estate brokerage services in the Greater Toronto Area, contrary to section 79 of the Competition Act (the Act). The Commissioner successfully argued that such data was an input into a new form of dynamic competition and that TREB restrictions prevented the emergence of innovative, Internet-based business models.

While the FCA decision on TREB's appeal does not break much new ground, it does provide insights into how various elements of the abuse of dominance provision are to be interpreted, particularly in an access to data context. Competition law access-to-data cases are likely to become increasingly common given the critical role data plays in the economy as an input to other products and a product in its own right. In fact, there have been a number of cases addressing refusal to provide access,2 and this issue is also addressed in the Competition Bureau's draft discussion paper released in September 2017 on "Big Data and Innovation: Implications for Competition Policy in Canada"3 (a paper that follows similar efforts by competition authorities in Europe). The FCA's decision also considers the interface between privacy, competition and copyright law.

Background and Procedural History

The FCA's decision concerns MLS, a database of current and previously-available property listings operated across Canada by local real estate boards. Copyright in MLS is owned by the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA), which intervened at the FCA in support of TREB. In the Greater Toronto Area, TREB makes the MLS available to its broker-members through an electronic data feed which those brokers, in turn, use to populate their websites, known as "virtual office websites" or "VOWs."

In May 2011, the Commissioner challenged TREB's VOW policies restricting specific listing information from dissemination on the MLS's data feed, including old and "pending sold" homes, withdrawn listings and broker commission details. The Commissioner argued the VOW policies impeded the ability of "innovative" brokers with VOW-centred business models from competing.

In an initial decision in 2013, the Tribunal dismissed the Commissioner's application, finding that since TREB did not compete with its members in the real-estate brokerage market, it could not commit the "anti-competitive acts" required to be demonstrated as an element of abuse of dominance.4 In February 2014, the FCA rejected that interpretation and reversed the Tribunal's decision.5 In redetermination hearings in 2016, the Tribunal granted the Commissioner's application.6 TREB then appealed to the FCA.

The FCA's Decision

TREB challenged the Tribunal's 2016 findings on three principal grounds:

  • The Tribunal inappropriately relied on qualitative evidence in making its assessment of impacts on competition, contrary to the Supreme Court's guidance in its 2015 ruling in Tervita Corp. v Canada (Commissioner of Competition)7;
  • The VOW policies' exclusion of data from the MLS feed was done for legitimate privacy reasons, not with anti-competitive intent; and
  • TREB's exercise of copyright in MLS could not, pursuant to section 79(5) of the Act, constitute an anti-competitive act.

(a) Reliance on qualitative evidence

In response to TREB's first claim, the FCA held that the Tervita case had only insisted that the Commissioner produce evidence on quantifiable anti-competitive effects in the specific context of the "efficiencies defence" under section 96 of the Act. That defence relates to the Commissioner's powers to review mergers, not anti-competitive conduct by a "dominant" firm (specifically, the defence shields an anti-competitive merger from the Act's remedies if it can be shown that gains in efficiency "will be greater than, and will offset" the effects of any prevention or lessening of competition).

The Tribunal also refused to draw an adverse inference against the Commissioner for his failure to adduce empirical evidence relating to other geographic markets (the U.S. and Nova Scotia) where "full information" VOWs existed. The FCA concluded that doing so would be akin to dictating the Commissioner's presentation of his case.

In coming to its conclusions, the FCA appeared to agree with the Tribunal's assessment of the difficulties of quantification for a case grounded on harm to dynamic competition or innovation:

... [I]t is important to point out that the Tribunal understood the difference in nature between quantitative and qualitative evidence and that it recognized that it was more difficult for the Commissioner to prove his case on the basis of mostly qualitative evidence. The Tribunal indicated that in a case like the one before it, which pertained mostly to dynamic competition, it was inevitable that the Commissioner would have to rely on qualitative evidence in the form of business documents, witness statements, and testimonies, adding, however, that it remained the Commissioner's burden to prove his case on a balance of probabilities.

Beyond its dismissal of this aspect of TREB's appeal, the Tribunal found that it was not required to address certain factual issues raised by TREB given its failure to seek leave to challenge questions of fact.

(b) Privacy as a business justification

With respect to privacy, TREB argued that the Tribunal had failed to accept that its efforts to comply with privacy laws (specifically the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)) could constitute a legitimate business justification for the VOW policies. If TREB's argument had been accepted, it would have countered the Commissioner's characterization that the refusal to supply the data constituted an "anti-competitive act" under the Act's dominance provision.

The FCA upheld the Tribunal's finding that TREB's business justification "simply did not mesh with the evidence," noting: the disputed data's wide use by those with data feed access; TREB's inconsistent enforcement of its privacy rules; and the lack of evidence that the VOW policies had any privacy purpose (including the absence of evidence from its Chief Privacy Officer or Chief Information Officer). The FCA also upheld the Tribunal's finding that TREB's Listing Agreement (on which TREB had sought legal advice) contained sufficient consent to be compliant with the statute without the VOW policies. While the FCA agreed with TREB that the Tribunal erred to the extent it required privacy to be the "original or seminal motivation" of the impugned conduct to provide a defence, it found the Tribunal's conclusions on the lack of a privacy nexus "compelling."

(c) Copyright in the MLS

Finally, the FCA dismissed TREB and CREA's argument that TREB's copyright in MLS allowed it to avail itself of section 79(5) of the Act, which states that an act "engaged in pursuant only to the exercise" of certain intellectual property (IP) rights is not an anti-competitive act. Citing the Tribunal's finding that the VOW policies served to "insulate members from new entrants and new forms of competition," the FCA held that TREB had gone beyond "only" exercising IP rights, commenting as follows on the interplay between those rights and Canada's competition law framework:

Parliament clearly signaled, through the use of the word "only", to insulate intellectual property rights from allegations of anti-competitive conduct in circumstances where the right granted by Parliament, in this case, copyright, is the sole purpose of exercise or use. Put otherwise, anti-competitive behaviour cannot shelter behind a claim of copyright unless the use or protection of the copyright is the sole justification for the practice.

The FCA found that the conditions TREB attached to the use of the data—rather than aiming to protect its copyright—were instead designed to insulate its members from new entrants and forms of competition in the residential real estate brokerage market. In addition, the FCA held that TREB processed MLS information through a "mechanical exercise" that was insufficient to meet the originality standards required for a copyright claim.

Broader Implications

While not a radical decision, TREB does provide some useful guidance about both the Commissioner and the respondent's evidentiary burden in an abuse of dominance case.

The FCA refused to apply the Tervita merger case's requirement for quantification of the harm to competition in the dominance context. Following its major defeat in Tervita, the Commissioner publicly indicated that the Competition Bureau "will prioritize the use of advanced econometric analyses given the SCC's direction that anti-competitive effects should be quantified wherever possible" and referenced "further in-house resources" being dedicated to that end. In contrast to Tervita, the FCA's decision exhibits a concern for preserving the Commissioner's leeway to pursue enforcement targeted at non-price or dynamic dimensions of competition—and its holdings are significant in the context of the Commissioner's recent focus on innovation.

For firms wishing to shield proprietary data on the basis of privacy rules, the FCA's decision establishes that while privacy need not be shown to be the "original or seminal motivation", there must be sufficient evidence (through corporate records, testimony and consistent conduct, for example) to support privacy as the reason for a refusal to supply. Privacy claims cannot merely be ex post attempts to rationalize the "predatory, disciplinary or exclusionary" behaviour prohibited by the Act.

Given the rise of the data-driven economy, the interface between privacy and competition law may be growing in significance, and future case law may be needed to clarify the balance between them. Canadian authorities have yet to follow their European counterparts who have shown a higher degree of interest in, and concern about, the privacy/competition interface to this point.

Footnotes

1. 2017 FCA 236.

2. For example, in 2016, the Competition Bureau investigated whether contractual restrictions imposed by TMX Group (TMX) on investment dealers preventing them from sharing private market data with third parties without TMX's written consent constituted an anti-competitive act that was likely to cause a substantial prevention of competition in a market under the abuse of dominance provision of the Act. Aequitas Innovations Inc. (Aequitas) claimed that it was unable to develop an innovative product without access to such data. However, the Bureau concluded that sufficient future competition from Aequitas' new product would be unlikely to materialize as even without TMX's contractual restrictions, Aequitas would not have been able to obtain enough data from investment dealers to develop a competitive product.

3. See online.

4. The Commissioner of Competition v The Toronto Real Estate Board, 2013 Comp Trib 9.

5. The Commissioner of Competition v The Toronto Real Estate Board, 2014 FCA 29.

6. The Commissioner of Competition v The Toronto Real Estate Board, 2016 Comp Trib 6.

7. 2015 SCC 3.

About Dentons

Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.com

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. Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions