Competition Year In Review 2025

TOP STORIES

Supreme Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal a BC class action certification decision concerning Hard Disk Drive Suspension Assemblies. The claim alleges price fixing by manufacturers of the assemblies in sales to HDD manufacturers. The HDDs themselves were manufactured abroad, and the suspension assemblies entered Canada only indirectly as components of finished drives. There were no direct sales of the assemblies into Canada.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia certified a class action against the suspension assembly manufacturers, and the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The case raises two important issues. First, whether Canadian courts have jurisdiction over manufacturers that have no direct business into Canada. Second, how much of the alleged criminal activity under the price fixing provisions in s. 45 of the Act must take place in Canada as a prerequisite of establishing the underlying price fixing offence.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case will significantly impact how transnational supply chain price fixing cases are litigated in Canada going forward.  

Searching for Private Enforcement

Google and Apple are the targets of the first ever private claim for compensation before the Competition Tribunal, in Martin v. Alphabet. The proposed application, brought by a consumer, raises allegations of abuse of dominance under s. 79 of the Competition Act, and anticompetitive agreements under s. 90.1 of the Act.

The proposed application claims that Google is dominant in the market for online search in Canada, controlling more than 90% of the market. It is alleged that Google has built up, and maintains, this dominance through anticompetitive agreements with major web browsers and original equipment manufacturers. According to the application, through these agreements Google shares a portion of its advertising revenue in exchange for having its search engine programmed as the default search engine on a variety of web browsers and devices. These agreements are said to disadvantage rival and potential rival search engines, limiting competition in the Canadian market for online search.

The only agreement counterparty named in the application is Apple, which is alleged to have received billions of dollars annually via revenue‑sharing payments from Google. The application argues that if it were not for Google’s agreement with Apple, Apple would be incentivized to develop a competing search product, which would benefit Canadian consumers. Google and Apple’s agreement is alleged to have resulted in reduced consumer choice and to have stifled innovation in the market for online search.

Martin is seeking compensation under the Act for the allegedly anticompetitive conduct of Google and Apple. Martin will require leave of the Tribunal to prosecute this private application. A leave motion was argued in the fall of 2025, with a decision expected in early 2026.

CIVIL ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT AND AGREEMENTS

Taking a Bite: A public interest group is seeking leave to bring a private abuse of dominance application against Apple for conduct in the markets for app distribution and app payment. Apple is alleged to have engaged in practices that foreclose effective competition in these markets, allowing Apple to charge supra competitive prices.

Big Ticket: A public interest group is seeking leave to  bring a private abuse of dominance application against  Live Nation/Ticketmaster. The application alleges that the company operates a vertically integrated system that uses exclusivity agreements, tying, market‑allocation arrangements, and radius clauses to foreclose competition across five interdependent markets in the live‑music ecosystem. It is alleged that these practices allow Live Nation/Ticketmaster to raise fees, venue rents, and ticket prices, resulting in supra competitive prices throughout the live music industry.  

More Private Enforcement: 8X Labs Inc., a Canadian ad tech startup, brought a motion for leave before  the Tribunal to commence a private application against  Vistar Media Inc. It is alleged that Vistar, a dominant Digital Out‑of‑Home advertising provider, acted anticompetitively by refusing to supply ads via its Supply Side Platform, imposing tied selling, and discriminating against 8X for its low pricing, forcing 8X out of the market and harming competition. The application raises allegations of abuse of dominance and other reviewable practices.

Prescription for s. 11: The Bureau obtained a court order to advance an investigation into Express Scripts Canada, a company that provides prescription drug claim processing services. The Bureau’s investigation concerns potential impacts in the retail pharmacy market, including patient steering and margin squeezing.

Prime Time: Amazon is the subject of a Bureau abuse of dominance investigation. The Bureau is investigating the company’s “fair pricing policy,” which allegedly allows Amazon to penalize sellers for certain pricing conduct on Amazon.ca.

No Short Circuit: Empire Company Limited failed in its attempt to judicially review the Commissioner’s decision to commence an inquiry. The inquiry concerned various property controls allegedly employed by the grocer. The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that decisions to commence an inquiry are not subject to judicial review. Empire subsequently agreed to remove property controls in Crowsnest Pass, Alberta.

Losing Control: Loblaw committed to eliminating property controls in the retail grocery space across Canada. This action stemmed from an investigation concerning Loblaw’s property controls undertaken by the Bureau.

Algorithmic Landlord: The Bureau announced that it concluded its civil investigation into algorithmic pricing in the Canadian rental housing market. The Bureau concluded that algorithmic pricing software tools have not been adopted widely enough by Canadian landlords to substantially harm competition. However, the Bureau expressed concern about the potential impact of such tools going forward. The Bureau issued guidance to the industry, warning that certain features of these software tools may distort the competitive process and raise concerns under the Act.

Falling Fees: The Bureau announced that it is monitoring Interac’s commitment to change its e-transfer pricing structure in a manner that will benefit smaller financial institutions. Interac’s business practices have long been a focus of the Bureau.

Here We Go Again: The Bureau obtained a court order to advance an investigation into conduct by the Quebec Professional Association for Real Estate Brokers related to real estate data sharing restrictions. The Bureau’s investigation concerns whether certain practices harm competition in the real estate brokerage services market in Quebec.

PRICE FIXING CLASS ACTIONS

Not Cleared for Takeoff: The Ontario Superior Court refused to certify a proposed class action alleging that Air Canada, Delta, American Airlines, and United conspired to suppress transborder flight capacity and inflate fares.  The plaintiff argued that the alleged conspiracy mirrored earlier U.S. litigation, but the court held that reliance on U.S. proceedings did not supply the “some basis in fact” required to establish a Canadian conspiracy. 

Cold Cut: The Quebec Superior Court refused to authorize a proposed class action alleging that Maple Leaf Foods and major grocery retailers conspired to fix prices of certain meat products, finding that the applicant’s allegations were speculative and lacked the necessary factual underpinning.

Closing the Door: The Federal Court approved a relatively modest settlement in a price fixing class action against Masonite and Jeld-Wen alleging price fixing in the market for interior molded doors. The court noted the settlement was fair considering the weakness of the Canadian case, which was drawn almost entirely from a U.S. action with no specific material facts tying the conspiracy to Canada.

Raising the Steaks: The British Columbia Supreme Court certified a civil conspiracy claim against meat‑packing companies who are alleged to have fixed and stabilized beef prices. The court declined to certify all aspects of the claim, holding that upstream supply-side conduct could not ground a claim under the price fixing provisions of the Act, despite the certification of common law conspiracy claims. In a further decision, a partial settlement of the claim was approved with JBS and National Beef.

No Second Chances: The representative plaintiff in the Bread Class Action was not permitted to amend his claim to add Maple Leaf Foods as a defendant. Certification had previously been denied as against Maple Leaf Foods because the original Statement of Claim failed to plead a cause of action against the company. The Court of Appeal  for Ontario held that the denial of certification made the issue res judicata, foreclosing a future amendment to add the company to the claim. In a further decision, the Superior Court of Justice approved a settlement with Loblaw.

MERGERS

Fragile Fusion: The Bureau is investigating whether BWX Technologies’ acquisition of Kinectrics is likely to result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in Canada’s nuclear medicine sector, as both companies provide numerous products and services at various stages of the medical isotope value chain.

Drilling Down: Schlumberger Limited’s acquisition of ChampionX Corporation raised competition concerns in the market for oilfield services and equipment. As part of the merger, the Bureau required the divestiture of one ChampionX business unit, and the granting of an IP license relating to quartz transducers by another business unit.  

All’s Well…: The Bureau is investigating whether WELL Health’s acquisition of HEALWELL is likely to result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in the market for healthcare technology products and related services in Canada.

Divesting Gas: The Bureau required Canadian Natural Resources Limited to sell 75% of its interest in one natural gas processing plant as a result of Canadian Natural’s acquisition of an interest in 16 natural gas processing plants in southeastern Alberta from Schlumberger N.V.

In Bad Taste?: The Bureau is investigating whether Mérieux NutriSciences’ acquisition of Bureau Veritas’ food testing business is likely to result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in Canadian food testing markets. 

MARKETING PRACTICES

Unlimited Motion Practice: The Bureau’s misleading advertising application continued against  Rogers Communications this year, concerning Rogers’ “unlimited” mobile phone plans. Rogers was granted additional production on one discovery motion, had certain refusals of the Commissioner ordered answered on another, and was partially successful on a further motion to amend its Response to the Commissioner’s Notice of Application.

Food Fees: The Bureau commenced an application against DoorDash, alleging that it had advertised delivery services at a lower price than consumers ultimately paid because of the addition of mandatory fees at checkout.

Dropped Call: The Federal Court stayed a misleading advertising class action brought by a consumer against Ooma Inc., a company offering Voice over Internet Protocol phone services, enforcing an arbitration clause in the consumer agreement. The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s cross‑motion for certification, finding that there was no reasonable cause of action, as Ooma’s advertising and billing materials, when read in context, always included clear references to applicable taxes and fees.

One Star Review: A proposed class action alleging that Uber’s Uber Eats platform engages in drip pricing was stayed in favour of arbitration. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the enforcement of the arbitration clause on appeal.

Not Amused: The Bureau commenced an application against Canada’s Wonderland, alleging that the park advertised prices that failed to include a mandatory fixed fee, contrary to the misleading advertising provisions of the Act.

Seeking Relief: The British Columbia Supreme Court certified a class action to recover health care costs against numerous manufacturers of opioids. The class action includes allegations that manufacturers made false or misleading representations contrary to section 52 of the Act.

Cheque in the Mail: The Federal Court certified a class action against Canada Post alleging that the letter carrier engaged in drip pricing by failing to disclose a mandatory fuel surcharge in its initial price representation for certain services.

Just Say No: A class action was certified against JUUL and Altria in British Columbia. Plaintiffs in the case allege the companies made false or misleading representations about the safety, addictiveness, and health effects of e‑cigarettes, including by omission of material risks.

CRIMINAL

Conspiring Contractors: Five individual contractors pled guilty to a conspiracy to divide up 54 social housing contracts in Manitoba. The five individuals were ordered to pay a combined $196,000 in fines.

Hit the Road: Pavex Ltd. settled a market allocation prosecution related to paving contracts in the Saguenay‑LacSaint‑Jean region of Quebec. The company paid a $150,000 fine as part of the settlement.

Hit the Road (Take Two): A former executive of Pavages Maska Inc. pled guilty to bid‑rigging for a paving contract awarded by the Quebec government in the Granby region, and was ordered to pay a fine of $20,000.

GENERAL

Take off, eh: The Bureau published a market study into Canada’s domestic airline industry. The study recommended that governments prioritize competition in Canada’s aviation policy, including in the review of airline mergers and collaborations, reducing barriers on foreign ownership and supporting northern and remote market access.

Credit Costs Questioned: The Bureau announced that it will be conducting a market study into the state of competition in the lending sector for small and medium-sized enterprises in Canada. Among many issues considered will be the fact that such entities face higher borrowing costs than larger businesses, to an extent that outpaces other OECD countries.

No Shortage of Guidance: The Bureau published several new guidelines concerning its approaches to market studies, competitor property controls, environmental claims, and private access to the Tribunal. The Bureau is also seeking input on its draft Anti-Competitive Conduct and Agreements Enforcements Guide, which will replace several older enforcement guidelines. Input is also being sought for the Bureau’s draft Merger Enforcement Guidelines.

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.