Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 APRIL 2013

Competition Tribunal Confirms Abuse Of Dominance Must Target Competitors

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Explore more from Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP

On April 15, 2013, the Competition Tribunal rejected the Commissioner of Competition’s argument that the Toronto Real Estate Board was engaging in anti-competitive acts contrary to section 79 of the Competition Act.1

CanadaAntitrust/Competition Law
Kevin Ackhurst
Kevin Ackhurst
Author LinkedIn connections

On April 15, 2013, the Competition Tribunal rejected the Commissioner of Competition's argument that the Toronto Real Estate Board was engaging in anti-competitive acts contrary to section 79 of the Competition Act.1 The case, launched in 2011, was part of then-Commissioner Melanie Aitken's tough new approach to enforcement of the Competition Act (Act). Her successor, interim Commissioner John Pecman, has indicated he will review the decision to determine the Competition Bureau's next steps in this matter.

This remarkably short (8 pages) decision confirms existing case law, which states that in order to constitute abuse of dominance, the dominant party's conduct must (with limited exceptions) have intended, negative effects on competitors.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Competition Bureau Reaches Consent Agreement With Empire Company Limited Regarding Grocery Property Controls

The Competition Bureau of Canada has entered into a consent agreement with Empire Company Limited, parent of major grocery chains including Sobeys and Safeway, restricting the company's use of property controls that limit competition. This agreement prohibits Empire from enforcing certain restrictive covenants and exclusivity clauses that prevent other grocers from operating nearby, despite Empire's earlier voluntary commitments. The Bureau's action signals heightened regulatory scrutiny of property control
CanadaAntitrust/Competition Law
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Article

Greenwashing In Canada: What The Competition Bureau’s 2026 Updated Environmental Claims Guidelines Mean For Your Business

Canada's Competition Bureau has released updated guidelines addressing environmental claims and greenwashing under the Competition Act. The guidelines establish six compliance principles and clarify how businesses must substantiate environmental benefit claims following recent legislative amendments, including changes introduced by Bill C-15 that provide greater flexibility in substantiation methods while maintaining evidence requirements.
CanadaAntitrust/Competition Law
WeirFoulds LLP
WeirFoulds LLP
Article

Cassels On Competition: October 2026

More particularly, the Plaintiff had argued that the drip pricing provision in subsection 52(1.3) of the Competition Act requires “all-inclusive pricing” and forbids all forms of “fragmented or segmented pricing,” and that Ticketmaster’s partitioned price representations are thus prohibited as a criminal conduct and amount to false or misleading representations covered by the criminal misleading advertising provision in section 52
CanadaAntitrust/Competition Law
Cassels
Cassels