Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 MARCH 2012

Rogers Communications Claims Misleading Advertising Case, Amps Violate Canadian Constitution

Stikeman Elliott LLP
Explore more from Stikeman Elliott LLP

Rogers Communications Inc. will appear before the Ontario Superior Court in June, claiming that two aspects of the Competition Act dealing with civilly reviewable misleading advertising are unconstitutional.

CanadaAntitrust/Competition Law
Susan Hutton
Susan Hutton
Author LinkedIn connections

Rogers Communications Inc. will appear before the Ontario Superior Court in June, claiming that two aspects of the Competition Act dealing with civilly reviewable misleading advertising are unconstitutional: AMPs (administrative monetary penalties) in the millions of dollars, and the "adequate and proper" testing requirements. If they are ruled unconstitutional, the case stands to gut the Competition Bureau's ability to seek multi-million dollar penalties under the civil misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act, and may have implications for its ability to do so in abuse of dominance provisions as well.

The Competition Bureau's legal proceedings against Rogers began in September, 2010 when Wind Mobile filed a formal complaint with the Competition Bureau regarding Roger's new discount cell phone service, Chatr Wireless. In November 2010, the Commissioner started legal proceedings against Rogers to stop the allegedly misleading advertising of Chatr,

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

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
Article

Pre-Merger Notification Guide: Canada’s Competition Act

This comprehensive guide examines the pre-merger notification requirements under Canada's Competition Act, providing essential information for parties considering transactions that may trigger mandatory filing obligations. The guide outlines the thresholds, procedures, and compliance considerations that businesses must navigate when planning mergers and acquisitions in the Canadian market.
CanadaAntitrust/Competition Law
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
Article

Kalibrate Consent Agreement Targets Third-Party Information Sharing As Abuse Of Dominance

On September 24, 2026, the Competition Bureau (Bureau) announced it had entered into a consent agreement with Kalibrate Canada Inc. (Kalibrate) to address concerns regarding Kalibrate’s collection and distribution of detailed retail fuel data through its Kalibrate Market Intelligence product (KMI). More broadly, the matter signals the Bureau’s willingness to challenge information-sharing arrangements under multiple provisions of the Competition Act (Act), including through abuse of dominance where the intermediary itself is alleged to be dominant.
CanadaAntitrust/Competition Law
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP