Canada (August 23, 2000) - Revision history

HCargill at 15:09, 23 July 2008

2008-07-23T15:09:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:09, 23 July 2008
Line 17:		Line 17:
	\| Remedies		\| Remedies
	\| Fines		\| Fines
			\|1
	\| Numerous provisions provide for fines, including §79 (1) for abuse of dominance, §47 for bid rigging, and §45(1) for restrictive agreements.		\| Numerous provisions provide for fines, including §79 (1) for abuse of dominance, §47 for bid rigging, and §45(1) for restrictive agreements.

HCargill at 15:09, 23 July 2008

2008-07-23T15:09:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:09, 23 July 2008
Line 17:		Line 17:
	\| Remedies		\| Remedies
	\| Fines		\| Fines
	\| 1		\| Numerous provisions provide for fines, including §79 (1) for abuse of dominance, §47 for bid rigging, and §45(1) for restrictive agreements.
	~~\| §100 allows fines for failing to notify of a transaction.~~ Numerous ~~other~~ provisions ~~also~~ provide for fines, including §79 (1) for abuse of dominance, §47 for bid rigging, and §45(1) for restrictive agreements.

	\|-		\|-
Line 24:		Line 23:
	\| Prison Sentences		\| Prison Sentences
	\| 1		\| 1
	\| ~~§100 allows the Tribunal to impose imprisonment for failing to notify.~~ §45(1) allows prison sentences for restrictive agreements. §47 allows prison sentences for bid-rigging. §61(9) allows prison sentences for resale price maintenance.		\| §45(1) allows prison sentences for restrictive agreements. §47 allows prison sentences for bid-rigging. §61(9) allows prison sentences for resale price maintenance.

	\|-		\|-

HCargill: added statutory provisions, but didn't change score.

2008-07-23T14:53:21Z

added statutory provisions, but didn't change score.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:53, 23 July 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	''Governed by:'' Competition Act of 23 August 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).		''Governed by:'' Competition Act of 23 August 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).
	<ref>http://~~www~~.~~sice~~.~~oas~~.~~org~~/~~compol~~/~~natleg~~/~~Canada~~/~~cpactind.asp~~</ref>		<ref>Statute available online from the Canada Department of Justice, at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/C-34</ref>

	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\| Extraterritoriality		\| Extraterritoriality
	\| 1		\| 1
	\| §92 gives the Tribunal power over any merger (domestic or foreign) that has an effect in Canada.		\| §92 gives the Tribunal power over any merger (domestic or foreign) that has an effect in Canada. §46 also extends the reach of the statute to encompass foreign directives towards companies doing business in Canada.

	\|- class="categorydivision"		\|- class="categorydivision"
Line 18:		Line 18:
	\| Fines		\| Fines
	\| 1		\| 1
	\| §100 allows fines for failing to notify of a transaction.		\| §100 allows fines for failing to notify of a transaction. Numerous other provisions also provide for fines, including §79 (1) for abuse of dominance, §47 for bid rigging, and §45(1) for restrictive agreements.

	\|-		\|-
Line 24:		Line 24:
	\| Prison Sentences		\| Prison Sentences
	\| 1		\| 1
	\| §100 allows the Tribunal to impose imprisonment for failing to notify.		\| §100 allows the Tribunal to impose imprisonment for failing to notify. §45(1) allows prison sentences for restrictive agreements. §47 allows prison sentences for bid-rigging. §61(9) allows prison sentences for resale price maintenance.

	\|-		\|-
Line 30:		Line 30:
	\| Divestitures		\| Divestitures
	\| 1		\| 1
	\| §92 allows the Tribunal to dissolve companies formed by impermissible mergers.		\| §92 allows the Tribunal to dissolve companies formed by impermissible mergers. §79(2) allows for divestitures if a near-monopoly is engaging in anti-competitive practices and other remedies are unlikely to restore competition.

	\|- class="categorydivision"		\|- class="categorydivision"
Line 102:		Line 102:
	\| Other		\| Other
	\| 1		\| 1
	\| §93 allows Tribunal to consider business failure in merger calculus.		\| §93(b) allows the Tribunal to consider business failure in merger calculus.

	\|-		\|-
Line 150:		Line 150:
	\| Efficiency Defense		\| Efficiency Defense
	\| 1		\| 1
	\| ~~§85-90 allow~~ the ~~Commissioner~~ to ~~take into account gains in efficiency when evaluating the prohibited~~ practices.		\| §79(4) allows the Commission to consider whether a dominant party's competition-limiting practices stem from better competitive performance.

	\|- class="categorydivision"		\|- class="categorydivision"
Line 204:		Line 204:
	\| Efficiency Defense		\| Efficiency Defense
	\| 1		\| 1
	\| §85-90 allow the Commissioner to take into account gains in efficiency when evaluating the prohibited practices.		\| §85-90 allow the Commissioner to take into account gains in efficiency in very limited circumstances when evaluating the prohibited practices.

	\|}		\|}

AchalOza at 14:01, 12 October 2007

2007-10-12T14:01:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:01, 12 October 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Score = 25'''		'''Score = 24'''

	''Governed by:'' Competition Act of 23 August 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).		''Governed by:'' Competition Act of 23 August 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).

Kajrozga at 20:38, 9 September 2007

2007-09-09T20:38:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, 9 September 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Score = 19'''		'''Score = 25'''

	''Governed by:'' Competition Act of 23 August 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).		''Governed by:'' Competition Act of 23 August 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).

Kajrozga at 13:19, 30 August 2007

2007-08-30T13:19:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:19, 30 August 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	''Governed by:'' Competition Act of 23 August 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).		''Governed by:'' Competition Act of 23 August 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).
	<ref>~~Canadian Competition Bureau website,~~ http://www.~~competitionbureau~~.gc.ca/~~internet~~/~~index~~.~~cfm?itemID=1141&lg=e~~</ref>		<ref>http://www.sice.oas.org/compol/natleg/Canada/cpactind.asp</ref>

	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"

Kajrozga at 16:17, 16 July 2007

2007-07-16T16:17:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:17, 16 July 2007
Line 35:		Line 35:
	\| Private Enforcement		\| Private Enforcement
	\| 3rd Party Initiation		\| 3rd Party Initiation
	\| 0		\| 1
	\|		\| §36(1)(a) states that any person who suffered loss due to a violation of §45-§62 can initiate a private suit in any “competent jurisdiction.”

	\|-		\|-
	\|		\|
	\| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties		\| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
	\| 0		\| 1
	\|		\| §36(1) provides for monetary remedies to third party initiators.

	\|-		\|-
Line 77:		Line 77:
	\| Merger Assessment		\| Merger Assessment
	\| Dominance		\| Dominance
	\| 0		\| 1
	\|		\| §92 makes market share part of the merger assessment, though not sufficient in itself.

	\|-		\|-
Line 84:		Line 84:
	\| Restriction of Competition		\| Restriction of Competition
	\| 1		\| 1
	\| ~~The Commissioner can~~ issue a remedial order to any merger that is likely to prevent competition.		\| §92 allows Tribunal to issue a remedial order to any merger that is likely to prevent competition.

	\|-		\|-
	\|		\|
	\| Public Interest (Pro D)		\| Public Interest (Pro D)
	\| 0		\| 1
	\|		\| §93 allows Tribunal to allow otherwise impermissible merger due to international competitiveness considerations.

	\|-		\|-
Line 101:		Line 101:
	\|		\|
	\| Other		\| Other
	\| 0		\| 1
	\|		\| §93 allows Tribunal to consider business failure in merger calculus.

	\|-		\|-
Line 114:		Line 114:
	\| Limits Access		\| Limits Access
	\| 1		\| 1
	\| ~~§77~~ prohibits market ~~restriction by dominant undertakings~~.		\| §78(e) prohibits “pre-emption of scarce facilities or resources . . . with the object of withholding the facilities or resources from a market.”

	\|-		\|-
Line 137:		Line 137:
	\|		\|
	\| Resale Price Maintenance		\| Resale Price Maintenance
	\| 0		\| 1
	\|		\| §61(1) prohibits resale price maintenance.

	\|-		\|-
	\|		\|
	\| Obstacles to Entry		\| Obstacles to Entry
	\| 0		\| 1
	\|		\| §78 prohibits anti-competitive acts that prevent market entry.

	\|-		\|-
Line 155:		Line 155:
	\| Restrictive Trade Practices		\| Restrictive Trade Practices
	\| Price Fixing		\| Price Fixing
	\| 0		\| 1
	\|		\| §45 makes price setting to lessen competition a criminal offense.

	\|-		\|-

Kajrozga: New page: '''Score = 19''' ''Governed by:'' Competition Act of 23 August 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”). Canadian Competition Bureau website, http://www.competitionbu...

2007-07-03T18:16:37Z

New page: '''Score = 19''' ''Governed by:'' Competition Act of 23 August 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”). <ref>Canadian Competition Bureau website, http://www.competitionbu...

New page

'''Score = 19'''

''Governed by:'' Competition Act of 23 August 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).
<ref>Canadian Competition Bureau website, http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/internet/index.cfm?itemID=1141&lg=e</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Subcategory !! Score !! Comment

|- class="categorydivision"
| Scope
| Extraterritoriality
| 1
| §92 gives the Tribunal power over any merger (domestic or foreign) that has an effect in Canada.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Remedies
| Fines
| 1
| §100 allows fines for failing to notify of a transaction.

|-
|
| Prison Sentences
| 1
| §100 allows the Tribunal to impose imprisonment for failing to notify.

|-
|
| Divestitures
| 1
| §92 allows the Tribunal to dissolve companies formed by impermissible mergers.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Private Enforcement
| 3rd Party Initiation
| 0
|

|-
|
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties
| 0
|

|-
|
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Notification
| Voluntary
| 0
|

|-
|
| Mandatory
| 3
| §114 requires pre-merger notification for large mergers.

|-
|
| Pre-merger
| 2
| §114 requires pre-merger notification for large mergers.

|-
|
| Post-merger
| 0
|

|- class="categorydivision"
| Merger Assessment
| Dominance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| The Commissioner can issue a remedial order to any merger that is likely to prevent competition.

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Public Interest (Pro Authority)
| 0
|

|-
|
| Other
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency
| 1
| §96 contains an exception for mergers that are likely to bring about gains in efficiency.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Dominance
| Limits Access
| 1
| §77 prohibits market restriction by dominant undertakings.

|-
|
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| §78 and 79 prohibit abuse of a dominant position.

|-
|
| Price Setting
| 1
| §50(1)(b) makes price setting (too low) a criminal offense.

|-
|
| Discriminatory Pricing
| 1
| §50(1)(a) makes discriminatory pricing a criminal offense.

|-
|
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 0
|

|-
|
| Obstacles to Entry
| 0
|

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| §85-90 allow the Commissioner to take into account gains in efficiency when evaluating the prohibited practices.

|- class="categorydivision"
| Restrictive Trade Practices
| Price Fixing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Tying
| 1
| §77 prohibits tying arrangements.

|-
|
| Market Division
| 0
|

|-
|
| Output Restraint
| 1
| §45 makes output restraint to lessen competition a criminal offense.

|-
|
| Market Sharing
| 0
|

|-
|
| Eliminating Competitors
| 1
| §50(1)(c) makes practices with the effect of eliminating a competitor a criminal offense.

|-
|
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging
| 1
| §47 makes bid rigging a criminal offense.

|-
|
| Supply Refusal
| 1
| §61(6) makes inducing a supply refusal a criminal offense.

|-
|
| Efficiency Defense
| 1
| §85-90 allow the Commissioner to take into account gains in efficiency when evaluating the prohibited practices.

|}

== References ==
<references />