Search

Theorists who discuss punishment and criminal law together nevertheless tend to make two important assumptions about the criminal law: first, that its scope is determined in accordance with sound principles, [...]

Soon after the coming into force of changes to the criminal provisions in the Competition Act, the commissioner of competition signalled that cartel enforcement would start to reflect a new [...]

In July 2003 the Canadian Competition Tribunal, a specialized court charged with hearing certain matters arising under the Competition Act, issued its decision (1) in Phase I of an application [...]

I. Introduction On October 19, 1999, Air Canada announced its plan to restructure Canada's airline industry. That plan included making an offer to acquire all or substantially all of the [...]

The author discusses Canada's Competition Act 1986 and the changes proposed to it in the form of Bill C-23. He discusses the strengths and weaknesses of these and suggests changes that need to be made to preserve competition.

The author discusses the economic theory of how mergers can lead to less competition and higher prices detrimental to consumers, then applies it to Canadian policy as seen in laws and cases.

Proposals for health care reform in the form of contracting out are gaining support in Canada. Contracting out would involve contracts between provincial governments, public hospitals, and groups of family doctors for the provision of medical services on a per patient basis. The Canada Health Act and Competition Act may affect or impede contracting out. General contract law will apply to contracting out just as it does in the private sector.

Vail Resorts reported that the Canadian Competition Bureau has issued a no-action letter under the Competition Act (Canada) indicating that it does not intend to challenge the proposed strategic business [...]

Canadian law on horizontal agreements needs to become more up-to-date. It lacks the flexibility necessary to deal with the increasingly varied kinds of horizontal arrangements between competing firms. This lackof flexibility includes a legal regime for the phenomenon of strategic alliance, one which has become popular. Canadian business competitiveness could suffer if firms hesitate to merge because of uncertainty surrounding the application of merger laws. Proposals to make Canadian law more up-to-date are considered.

The merger review processes that Canada has developed since the enactment of the Competition Act in 1986 have succeeded in providing businesses and practitioners with more extensive guidance than can be found in any other jurisdiction, but there are still areas of competition policy that could be improved. Authorities could improve information request procedures, the timing of merger reviews and allocation of resources. Areas of substantive law that need clarification include ease of entry, efficiency gains and anticompetitive effects analysis.

The compliance approach to merger review adopted in Canada with the passage of the Competition Act in 1986 benefits businesses subject to review, antitrust enforcement agencies and the public. The compliance approach reduces costs for both businesses and the government and provides businesses with greater certainty. The confidential advice available to merging businesses provides greater certainty and an incentive to provide more information to regulatory bodies. Authorities reinforce the compliance approach with more adversarial processes for those who abuse the system.

A new Canadian look at antitrust issues would apply the tort of conspiracy to anticompetitive cartel practices. A relaxation of the traditional rule and permission for plaintiffs other than parties to the bargain to mount equitable challenges to contracts in restraint of trade or an application of the tort of conspiracy to agreements in restraint of trade will be necessary for third parties injured by such restraints to get relief. Courts should acknowledge that the Mogul Steamship doctrine no longer applies in Canada and use such a tort when the purpose of such an agreement was profit at the expense of seller, workers or buyers.

The efficiency defense of Canada's Competition Act has yielded little if any benefit. Merger enforcement in Canada seems to have been changed little by the act's statement that anticompetitive mergers are permissible if their efficiency gain outweighs their anticompetitiveness. The Competition Tribunal does not find an economic efficiency standard to be workable. It seems unavoidable that Canadian antitrust law will become more like the US.

Litigation should be actionable under the Canadian Competition Act when the firm who is the possible defendant is dominant in a market with barriers to entry and a cost-benefit analysis of the litigation this firm has brought shows the goal to have been increasing a rival firm's costs by tying it up in litigation. Anti-competitive litigation is a kind of exclusionary conduct which harms consumer welfare and should be actionable.

I. Introduction In 1986 the government of Canada passed into law its new competition policy. The Competition Act replaced the Combines Investigation Act, the shortcomings of which have been widely [...]

Stricter price discrimination guidelines set forth under Canada's Competition Act have made Canada's price discrimination enforcement more consistent with US enforcement under the Robinson-Patman Act. Expansion of Canadian price discrimination law has allowed enforcement to reach volume discounts that are not related to the suppliers' cost savings. Canadian and US laws still differ in their treatment of conditional discounts, defenses, buyer liability and the necessity of a competitive injury. The differences between US and Canadian law will come under closer scrutiny with the future harmonization of trade regulation.

The merger review process for examining Canada's merger law has produced several proposed reforms that would greatly improve that law. This review process was carried out from Jun 1986 to Jun 1991 under the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act. Several factors influenced the process such as the merger boom, the concerns of business interests, other legislation and constitutional disputes. The resulting proposed reforms emphasize the need for the open review of mergers that would produce definitive settlements and would prevent the abuse of power by the Competition Tribunal's director.

Introduction On April 17, 1991, after close to 5 years' experience with Canada's amended merger law, and after substantial public consultation, the Director of Investigation and Research under the Competition [...]

ON A BITING COLD AFTERNOON IN JANUARY, I BOARD AN AIR CANADA FLIGHT IN Minneapolis. After a whirlwind couple of days on assignment, I comfort myself with the thought of [...]

Internet or mail letters deceptively claiming to award the recipient a prize could become illegal under legislation tabled in the Commons April 4 by Industry Minister Brian Tobin. The legislation [...]

A recent competition ruling sets a dangerous precedent Just as barbecuing season is coming to an end, there's good news and bad news on the propane front. First the bad [...]

Canadian businesses are bracing for the expected impact of changes to Canada's Competition Act. Changes include the criminal conspiracy provision, which makes companies guilty as soon as they enter into agreements for activities such as price fixing. Expected changes also include the shift of corporate merger filings to a single 30-day notification period.

The major airlines and IATA are the focus of a new lawsuit by our neighbors to the north. The Canadian Standard Travel Agent Registry filed a class-action lawsuit in federal [...]

There were 948 mergers in Canada in 1986. The Competition Act of 1986 subjects these mergers to the scrutiny of a government board to determine if they are anti-competitive. The process is bureaucratic, expensive, time-consuming, and leaves the parties with little more than a nonbinding, preliminary government approval, subject to revocation for a three year period. The scope of the term 'merger' is not clearly defined, and sometimes encompasses unlikely transactions. Some observers feel that the Act encourages foreign takeovers, since foreign purchases of Canadian firms do not fall within the purview of the Act. Delays are often caused by the mandatory pre-notification procedure, and the much-anticipated dialogue between government and business has not transpired.