The Competitor : Canada Competition / Antitrust Blog by Stikeman Elliott Lawyers & Attorneys

Susan M. Hutton

In a surprising turn of events, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology voted on December 2, 2004 to suspend further discussion of Bill C-19, An Act to Amend the Competition Act and to Make Consequential Amendments to Other Acts, for an indefinite period. The Committee had only recently commenced hearings concerning Bill C-19, the Government bill proposing important changes to the abuse of dominance, pricing and misleading advertising provisions of the Act, among others (see the November, 2004 issue of The Competitor for details).

The Committee had already heard from several witnesses, including the Commissioner of Competition, Sheridan Scott, as well as representatives from various business and lawyers' groups including the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the Competition Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Several other witnesses were scheduled to be heard, but their appearance has been postponed, along with further discussion of the bill.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

An agreement dealing with patent rights that is specifically authorized by the Patent Act, including the assignment of a patent, involves the "mere exercise" of patent rights such that any resulting lessening of competition is not undue and cannot constitute the criminal offence of conspiracy under section 45 of the Competition Act (the Act). That is the recent finding of the Federal Court of Canada in Eli Lilly and Company v. Apotex Inc., which represents a significant departure from the Competition Bureau's stated approach to the interface between competition policy and intellectual property rights.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On November 18, 2004, the Competition Bureau filed a consent interim agreement requiring Tolko Industries Ltd. (“Tolko”) to hold separate certain milling assets at the Riverside Okanagan Manufacturing Facilities, while the Bureau completed its review of the proposed transaction.  Tolko made an unsolicited bid for Riverside Forest Products Ltd. (“Riverside”) in August 2004. The hold separate agreement required Tolko to continue to run the facility independently for 45 days while the Bureau completed its review.  On January 24, 2005, Tolko acquired 100% of the common shares of Riverside.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On October 3, 2001, the Competition Tribunal issued an order requiring Canadian Waste Services Holdings (“CWS”) to divest a landfill.  In 2004, CWS applied to the Tribunal to set aside the divestiture order from 2001 and replace it with an order requiring the divestiture of a different landfill site on the basis that circumstances which led to making the original divestiture order had changed. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the grounds that CWS could not raise revised expectations about timing as changes of circumstances when it determined that such facts could reasonably have been known by CWS at the time of the hearing in 2001.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On December 7, 2004, the Competition Bureau entered into a consent agreement with West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd (“West Fraser”) and Weldwood of Canada Ltd. to divert both parties’ saw mill interests in Burns Lake and Decker Lake, as well as the associated forest tenures.  West Fraser also agreed to divest certain timber harvesting rights between the William Lake and 100 Mile House areas.  The Competition Bureau concluded that such divestitures would remove significant barriers to competition for new and existing competitors in the market.  West Fraser completed the acquisition on December 31, 2004

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Email This
• Print
• Share Link