Meet our litigators in this area

Competition Law

REGULATORY - Competition Law

We have acted on competition cases for over forty years. Between 1982-1984, one of our partners was seconded to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (now Competition Bureau) as Special Counsel.

The matters we have worked on have included leading price fixing and monopoly cases, far-reaching inquiries and precedent-setting Supreme Court of Canada matters. Among the cases on which we have acted are the following:

  • The Commissioner of Competition v. Labatt Brewing Co. Ltd., 2007 Comp. Trib. 9. We acted for the Commissioner of Competition at first instance on the proposed acquisition by Labatt Brewing Company Limited of all of the outstanding units of the Lakeport Brewing Income Fund. This decision is ranked in the Top Ten Business Cases of 2007 in Canada by Lexpert.

  • In the 1990s, we acted for a major U.S. motion picture distributor in the Competition Bureau's inquiry into the motion picture industry.

  • Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425. We acted for the Director in this case that determined the reach of the Director's subpoena power in the face of a constitutional challenge.

  • Irvine v. Canada (Restrictive Trade Practices Commission), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 181. We acted for the Commission in this case that delineated the rights of the commission in conducting its fact-finding inquiries.

  • Restrictive Trade Practices Commission v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act (1983), 145 D.L.R. (3d) 540 (F.C.A.). We acted for Shell Oil Company of Canada Ltd. in responding to the Commission's investigation into alleged price fixing in the oil and gas industry.

  • R. v. Armco (1976), 13 O.R. (2d) 32 (C.A.). We acted for one of the accused in connection with an alleged conspiracy to unduly lessen competition.

  • R. v. St. Lawrence Corp., [1969] 2 O.R. 305 (C.A.). We acted for one of the accused in respect of an alleged conspiracy to unduly lessen competition and on the issue of whether liability can be based on the doctrine of respondeat superior.