In a recent speech given at the Canadian Bar Association’s Competition Law Spring Conference, Commissioner of Competition, Matthew Boswell, announced the Bureau’s decision to place more focus on identifying non-notifiable mergers which could potentially raise competition law concerns.

While the Competition Act (“the Act”) requires pre-merger notification of certain proposed mergers when prescribed monetary thresholds

The Competition Bureau announced the 2019 transaction-size pre-merger notification threshold under the Competition Act increased to C$96 million from C$92 million, effective February 2, 2019. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada also announced new foreign investment review thresholds under the Investment Canada Act, effective January 1, 2019.

Competition Act

In general terms, certain transactions that

On October 26, 2017, the Canadian Competition Bureau (“Bureau”) released for public comment a revised version of its Immunity Program, under which a party may receive immunity from criminal prosecution if the party is the first to disclose an offence and agrees to cooperate with the Bureau’s investigation and prosecution of others. The revisions, discussed below, has led to comments and concerns from, among others, the CBA National Competition Law Section and the ABA Section of Antitrust Law. These comments and concerns are discussed below.

According to the press release, the program is being updated to increase transparency and predictability in light of legal and policy developments.

The Bureau has advised that the changes are prompted partly by the outcome of recent unsuccessful prosecutions and include the following:

  • Interim Grant of Immunity: Documentary and testimonial evidence will be provided under an interim grant of immunity (IGI). Final immunity will be provided when the applicant’s cooperation and assistance is no longer required.
  • End of Automatic Corporate Immunity for Directors, Officers and Employees: Automatic coverage under a corporate immunity agreement for all directors, officers and employees will no longer be provided. Instead, individuals that require immunity will need to demonstrate their knowledge of the conduct in question and their willingness to cooperate with the Bureau’s investigation.
  • Greater Use of Recordings: Witness interviews may be conducted under oath and may be video or audio recorded. Proffers, statements made by an applicant (usually through counsel) to the Bureau where the applicant is expected to reveal its identity and describe in detail the anti-competitive activity, may also be audio recorded.
  • Privileged Documents: Non-privileged records from companies’ internal investigations will be treated as presumptively disclosable facts in the possession of cooperating parties. And while privileged records will continue to be protected from disclosure, applicants will now be required to justify their claims of privilege.


Continue Reading

On October 27, 2017, Cardinal Ventilation Inc. was fined $375,000.00 after pleading guilty to one count of bid rigging related to three condominium development projects in Montreal. The contracts in question related to the supply and installation of ventilation and/or air conditioning systems in residential high-rise construction projects in the greater Montreal region.

Cardinal Ventilation Inc. admitted that it conspired with competing Montreal-area companies to obtain a ventilation contract by ensuring it offered the lowest bid on the Faubourg St-Laurent Phase II construction project in Montreal. The company also admitted to its participation in two other agreements to ensure that competing firms would get the contracts for two other projects: Le Roc Fleuri and Tour St-Antoine.

The courts have imposed fines totalling over $1 million in this matter.

Background

The Competition Bureau began investigating this matter following a tip from a former employee of one of the accused companies. Over the course of the investigation, Bureau officers searched many sites, seized thousands of documents and interviewed numerous witnesses. The Bureau eventually uncovered evidence indicating that several companies had coordinated their bids in order to pre-determine the winners of the residential construction contracts, while blocking out competitors. The Bureau’s investigation found evidence of bid rigging in five competitive bidding processes between 2003 and 2005, for contracts worth a total of approximately $8 million. In December 2010, the Bureau laid charges against eight companies and five individuals.

There have been several plea agreements in the matter. To date, four companies and two individuals have pleaded guilty for their participation in the bid-rigging scheme. As part of one individual’s plea agreement, he agreed to complete 50 hours of community service and to collaborate with the Bureau’s ongoing involvement in the matter.

In one case, charges against one of the accused individuals were withdrawn in exchange for the individual’s full cooperation with the Bureau’s investigation.

There is one remaining accused in the matter.


Continue Reading

pexels-photo-326514
This post has been prepared in collaboration with Chris Cole of Crowell & Moring law firm. Chris Cole is the Co-Chair of Crowell’s Advertising & Product Risk Management Group in Washington, D.C.

In less than three months, Canada will introduce a private right of action arising from false or misleading representations made in electronic messages. These provisions target false or misleading advertisements in, for example, email and social media and arguably capture website advertising based on the law’s broad definition of “electronic message.” Government-initiated enforcement of these provisions has already taken place through Canada’s Competition Bureau since 2014, which has led to Consent Agreements against Avis, Budget (following a contested application), Amazon, Hertz, and Dollar Thrifty. Even more concerning, the law applies statutory penalties to each violation. The closest United States analog to such a law would be the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which carries penalties for violation of up to $1500 per violation.

The new private right of action is expected to give rise to significant class action litigation in Canada, including against US and global businesses that engage in digital advertising in Canada. It is also expected to be an attractive method of challenging a competitor’s representations regarding a product or service. Driving these incentives will be the law’s statutory penalties of $200 per occurrence (not to exceed $1 million per day).

The following outlines the nature of this private right of action and take-aways for businesses that advertise in Canada.


Continue Reading

taxi-498437_1920

Hertz and Dollar Thrifty agree to pay $1.25 million

The Competition Bureau announced this week that Hertz and Dollar Thrifty have agreed to pay an administrative monetary penalty of $1.25 million and to implement compliance procedures to resolve the Bureau’s investigation of “drip pricing” by the companies.  “Drip pricing” refers to advertised prices that are

calgary-1751847_1920The Competition Bureau (Bureau) announced on December 7, 2016 that the Commissioner of Competition (Commissioner) had reached a settlement with Moose International Inc. (Moose) regarding his concerns over Moose’s “Made in Canada” advertising and labelling with respect to certain of its premium brand parkas.  The settlement brings to an end legal proceedings between the parties