Canada: Defending An Abuse Of Dominance Case

Last Updated: May 16 2019
Article by Andrew D. Little

The Competition Bureau’s updated Abuse of Dominance Enforcement Guidelines expressly provide, for the first time, that a party’s compliance with a statutory or regulatory requirement may constitute a “business justification” for conduct that is potentially anti-competitive.1

This business justification is similar to the regulated conduct defence, which may be raised in criminal cases and to defend class actions under the Competition Act. The regulated conduct defence has not yet been applied to an abuse of dominance proceeding in Canada.

The Competition Tribunal will soon issue its decision in the Vancouver Airport Authority abuse of dominance case. The airport has raised both a business justification and a regulated conduct defence. The Tribunal’s pending reasons could be very influential for the future, given the wide range of statutes and regulations applicable to companies doing business in Canada.

Anti-Competitive Acts and Required Conduct

Abuse of dominance under section 79 of the Competition Act requires the Commissioner to prove that a party has engaged in, or is engaging in, a practice of “anti-competitive” acts.2 Knowing what is “anti-competitive” (and what is not) is often a thorny question. There are examples of “anti-competitive” acts in the Competition Act. In law, anti-competitive acts are understood to have an intended negative effect on a competitor that is exclusionary, predatory or disciplinary.3

One way to defend against an allegation of abuse of dominance is to raise a “business justification” for the conduct. Proof of a valid business justification demonstrates that the overall “character” of the conduct is not anti-competitive. To succeed, a business justification must be a “credible efficiency or pro-competitive rationale” for the conduct. That rationale must relate to and counterbalance the anti-competitive effects and/or the subjective intent of the impugned acts.4

In its Toronto Real Estate Board decision, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal held that if a respondent engages in a practice that is required by a statute or regulation, it could constitute a business justification. That is, conduct may not be “anti-competitive” under paragraph 79(1)(b) of the Act if a statute or regulation required the party to do it.5 In its case, TREB claimed that compliance with federal privacy legislation (PIPEDA)6 was a business justification for restrictions it imposed on its members’ use of sale prices and other information in its database. TREB’s argument failed, because it did not implement the restrictions to comply with PIPEDA.7

TREB raises many questions about defending an abuse of dominance case based on conduct “required by statute or regulation”. One legal question is: how does it relate to the regulated conduct defence under the Competition Act?

The Regulated Conduct Defence

The regulated conduct defence (RCD) allows a party in some competition proceedings to rely on legislation to defend itself. If a party engages in conduct that is required, directed or authorized by a federal or provincial statute or regulations, and a provision expressly (or by necessary implication) directs or authorizes the person to engage in the conduct, then the conduct may not be a violation of the criminal law provisions of the Competition Act. The RCD uses statutory interpretation rules to ensure the criminal law provisions in the Competition Act are read harmoniously with other federal and provincial statutes.8

The RCD is expressly preserved as a defence to the price-fixing offence in the Competition Act. It is also used to defend class proceedings in which plaintiffs rely upon alleged price-fixing to ground a claim for civil damages.

Importantly, the RCD has not (yet) been extended to the “reviewable practices” provisions of the Competition Act, such as abuse of dominance in section 79. Abuse of dominance is not a criminal offence and the Commissioner has consistently resisted the application of the RCD beyond the criminal provisions of the Act.

While the RCD and the Court of Appeal’s legal conclusion in TREB are different in law, they share a common element: a statute or regulation that either requires or authorizes the party to engage in certain conduct. In both cases, if the necessary criteria are met, the conduct does not violate the Competition Act.

The Vancouver Airport Authority (VAA)  Case

The Competition Tribunal heard the Commissioner’s abuse of dominance case against the Vancouver Airport Authority (VAA) last autumn. The Commissioner alleges that VAA engaged in anti-competitive acts by excluding certain parties from offering catering services at the airport. The Tribunal has not yet released its decision.

Both a business justification and the RCD are at issue. The VAA’s formal Response pleads that it had a “valid efficiency-enhancing, pro-competitive business justification” for its actions—and specifically that its conduct was carried out in “fulfilment of its public interest mandate”, including to ensure the competitiveness of the airport.9

After the hearing, the Tribunal directed the parties to address specific questions, including:

  • Does the RCD operate to exempt allegedly anti-competitive conduct from the abuse of dominance provision in the Competition Act? Does the rationale from the criminal law cases extend to abuse of dominance?
  • What specific aspects of VAA’s mandate, and of the regulatory regime under which it operates, authorized or required it to refrain from licensing additional caterers?
  • Why shouldn’t the Competition Act and the regulatory regime under which the VAA operates be interpreted in a manner that enables them to co-exist?10

The Tribunal’s decision is expected sometime this year.

The Tribunal’s Pending Decision in VAA

The Tribunal’s decision in VAA will review the existing law on abuse of dominance including the decisions in TREB. In its decision, the Tribunal will hopefully determine whether, in law, the RCD applies to abuse of dominance.

In addition, based on the parties’ filed written arguments, the Tribunal will likely determine whether VAA’s decision to exclude any additional caterers from the airport was “anti-competitive” or not. The Tribunal may also decide whether the VAA’s actions are immunized from a remedy under section 79 because they were “authorized” by its public interest mandate under a federal Order-in-Council and the terms of the VAA’s lease of the airport from the government.

Statutes and regulations governing business conduct in Canada are abundant. A defence or legal exemption to abuse of dominance, based on required or regulated conduct under legislation, would be a significant development in Canadian competition law. A Tribunal decision favourable to VAA could expand the boundaries of lawful competition under the Competition Act by narrowing what conduct is considered “anti-competitive” under section 79. That could have a real impact on how Canadian businesses compete, and on future Bureau investigations and litigated cases under the Competition Act.


1. Competition Bureau, Abuse of Dominance Enforcement Guidelines (March, 2019), para. 80.

2. Competition Act, paragraph 79(1)(b). The other two statutory elements are that the party substantially or completely control a class or species of business in Canada (or in some area of Canada), and that the practice of anti-competitive acts has had, is having or is likely to have, the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially in a market. More than one person may also engage together in behaviour that violates section 79.

3. See section 78 and Commissioner of Competition v. Canada Pipe (2006), 49 CPR (4th) 241 (Fed CA), ¶66-68.

4. Canada Pipe, ¶73.

5. Toronto Real Estate Board v Canada (Commissioner of Competition), 2017 FCA 236 (TREB), ¶145-149. The court also confirmed the criteria in Canada Pipe.

6. Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5..

7. TREB, ¶130, 145-154, 158-165.

8. This has often been done using “leeway” language, e.g. in section 45 of the Competition Act (before 2010) and its predecessors. See Hughes v Liquor Control Board of Ontario, 2019 ONCA 305, affirming 2018 ONSC 1723 (Perell J).

9. VAA Response, ¶70-80, esp at 72, 76 and 79, available on the Tribunal’s website at

10. Competition Tribunal, Direction re Final Submissions dated November 5, 2018, p. 1 (also available on the Tribunal’s website).

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.

Andrew D. Little
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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