Annual Report - Appendix I: Discontinued Cases

During the year, the Bureau discontinued a number of the formal inquiries it had initiated into allegations of anti-competitive activity. These inquiries dealt with a range of civil and criminal matters, including the following.

Dairy Supplies

On May 18, 1999, the Competition Bureau initiated an inquiry into the business activities of a dairy supply company. Allegations included refusal to deal, abuse of a dominant position and price discrimination in the supply of replacement parts for dispensing equipment for refrigerated liquid products.

During the investigation, the Bureau determined the following:

---

• that the complainant was able to get supplies of parts from another source
• that the period of supply from the company was short
• that the value of the parts supplied was very small
• that the refusal to deal seemed to stem from a misunderstanding of the market segment in which the complainant was going to do business
• that there was vigorous competition in the servicing of this equipment.

---

Consequently, the Bureau concluded that there was no basis to continue an inquiry under the civil provisions of the Act.

With respect to allegations of price discrimination, the Bureau determined that, as no sales were taking place between the company and the complainant, no price discrimination had occurred. The Bureau discontinued the inquiry.

Consumer Credit Information

On September 22, 2000, the Bureau launched an inquiry into a refusal to supply consumer credit information.

The complainant company, which was involved in the collection and sale of consumer credit information, was competing against two other companies. It received consumer credit information from all the major credit grantor organizations in Canada, either directly or through an intermediary. The company named in the allegation was one of its suppliers until 1992, when it ceased this arrangement due to technical requirements. The complainant stated that it was unable to convince the company to resume supply, and consequently was substantially affected and unable to carry out its expansion plans across Canada.

The inquiry found that the complainant was not substantially affected by the refusal to supply credit information. The Bureau discontinued the inquiry.

Sale of Paint in the Retail Sector

On December 23, 1999, the Competition Bureau, following receipt of an application under section 9 of the Act, initiated an inquiry into alleged refusal to deal, abuse of a dominant position and exclusive dealing in the sale of paint to the retail sector in Fredericton.

Following a thorough investigation, the Bureau determined that because the supplier had closed some manufacturing plants it was not able to supply all of its customers for a period of time and had to restrict supply until it could again meet market demand. Therefore, although a refusal had occurred, there were no grounds for the Competition Tribunal to make an order under section 75 of the Act since the product was not in ample supply.

With regard to the complaints of exclusive dealing and abuse of dominance, the inquiry found that competition in the market was not lessened substantially. Consequently, the Bureau discontinued the inquiry.

Sale of Mobile Railcar Movers

The Bureau initiated an inquiry on January 21, 2000, into alleged refusal to deal and abuse of dominant position in the sale of mobile railcar movers and the respective replacement parts.

With regard to allegations of refusal to supply, the Bureau found that supply had been resumed through one of the authorized distributors in Canada. However, the complainant further claimed that there had been a significant delay in the resumption of supply. The Bureau monitored the matter for six months and received no information about further refusal to supply. As well, the Bureau obtained no evidence to substantiate the complaint that other independent parts suppliers were approached about having no further dealings with the complainant.

As to the allegation of anti-competitive action through the use of litigation or the threat of litigation to damage the company, the Bureau found that the criteria under which this would be deemed an anti-competitive act had not been met.

In view of the above, the Bureau discontinued the inquiry.

Issuance of Taxi Licences

In June 1998, the Bureau began an inquiry into an alleged conspiracy to restrict the number of taxi licences issued by the City of Toronto. It was further alleged that the conspiracy was an attempt to maximize the value of taxi plates and to promote, maintain and encourage the leasing and sub-leasing of taxi plates, contrary to city by-laws and regulations.

During its investigation, the Bureau found that the City was authorized to control the number of taxi licences it issued and that there was no evidence to suggest that it had been prevented from effectively exercising its regulatory powers. For these reasons, the Bureau closed the inquiry.

Supply of Electricity in Alberta

In December 1999, the Bureau began an investigation of behaviour that appeared to be criminal rigging of certain bids made by two importers of electricity into Alberta. Following a thorough investigation, the Bureau concluded that the companies were employing independent business strategies and were not colluding on bids. Therefore the Bureau closed the inquiry.

High-speed Internet Service

The Bureau discontinued an examination into a complaint regarding high-speed Internet service. It had received an application for inquiry from six Canadian residents (as is required for this type of inquiry), who alleged that a cable-based Internet service provider made misleading representations about a telephone-based competitor in the high-speed Internet market.

The Bureau initiated a formal inquiry under section 74.01(1) of the Competition Act, which prohibits a person or company from making false or misleading representations to the public for the purpose of promoting the supply or use of a product.

The Bureau determined that there was insufficient evidence to suggest a contravention of the Competition Act, and, therefore, closed the examination. The Commissioner's examination revealed that the representations at issue appeared in only one newspaper for a single day. Nothing indicated that the claims affected either consumers' perceptions of the benefits of the two types of high-speed Internet service or consumers' choice of Internet service provider.