The Canadian Competition Bureau will be pleased today, as significant and far-reaching amendments to the Competition Act and the Investment Canada Act were included in the Budget Implementation, 2009 bill (C-10), which was tabled today in the House of Commons by the Canadian government (see Parts XII and XIII).
Continue Reading...On January 16, 2009, Canada's Competition Bureau (the Bureau) released draft revised Abuse of Dominance Guidelines (the Updated Guidelines), which are intended eventually to replace the original guidelines released in 2001.
Abuse of dominance occurs when a dominant firm (or group of firms) in a market engage in a practice of anti-competitive acts with the result that competition is prevented or lessened substantially in a market. Sections 78 and 79 of the Competition Act set out the powers of the Competition Bureau to prohibit a dominant firm (or group of firms) from engaging in anti-competitive practices, or to require other remedial action if necessary to restore competition. At present, no damages or fines for abuse of dominance are provided for under the Act, although amendments to introduce fines have been proposed by the Government. To prove abuse of dominance, three principal elements must be established:
Commissioner of Competition Sheridan Scott announced in December that she was stepping down as Commissioner of Competition, head of Canada's competition enforcement agency, the Competition Bureau - to enter private practice. The Government has announced that Melanie Aitken, previously Senior Deputy Commissioner, Mergers Branch has taken over as Interim Commissioner. Adam Fanaki, a former private competition law practitioner who has been Special Counsel to the Commissioner for the past two years, takes over as Acting Senior Deputy Commissioner, Mergers Branch.
The announcement by the Competition Bureau on January 16, 2009 that it has concluded there is insufficient evidence to challenge the acquisition of Lakeport Brewing Income Fund (Lakeport) by Labatt Brewing Company (Labatt) brings to an end one of the most heated skirmishes in the annals of Canadian competition law. The outcome of what could be among the lengthiest merger reviews in Canadian legal history may well result in support by the Government for less judicial oversight of the merger review process, and for longer waiting periods, with a proposed move to US-style second request procedures.1 As described below, Shawn Neylan of Stikeman Elliott led the competition team for Lakeport prior to closing, supported by Michael Kilby. Litigation partner Katherine Kay successfully argued the case for Lakeport before the Competition Tribunal, in the hearing on the injunction application.
Enter keywords:
