Discontinued Cases 2002-2001-2000

The Commissioner of Competition may discontinue an inquiry at any time if there is insufficient evidence to make a responsible case under the provisions of the legislation.

To protect confidential information, the Bureau does not reveal the names of the companies involved unless they were otherwise made public.

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

The Competition Bureau received complaints alleging that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) engaged in exclusionary conduct that was likely to lessen or prevent competition substantially in the optional auto insurance market in B.C. The Bureau's examination identified competition concerns arising from a number of ICBC's actions or threats of action allegedly targeting brokers selling insurance from ICBC competitors. The Bureau has accepted ICBC's assurances that it has discontinued the alleged anti-competitive conduct.

The inquiry was discontinued on November 8, 2002.

Incorporated professional organization

Following a complaint, the Competition Bureau examined whether an incorporated professional organization, by offering expanded services to its members, was likely to substantially lessen or prevent competition in a market. In this case, the Bureau concluded that the corporation's actions fell under its incorporating act and that, under the defence based on regulatory conduct, the corporation's conduct could not therefore contravene the Competition Act.

The Bureau's inquiry was discontinued on November 6, 2002.

Aboricultural Services - Misleading Representation

This inquiry was initiated on August 22, 2002 following an application filed by six persons resident in Canada. It was alleged that a printed advertisement placed by a business to promote its aboricultural services included a representation concerning the qualifications of its staff which was false or misleading. Section 74.01 of the Competition Act prohibits the making of materially false or misleading representations to the public.

The marketing practices of the business were investigated and information was obtained indicating that the representation at issue appeared in one edition of a community directory. The advertisement which will appear in the 2002-2003 edition of this directory has been submitted to the Bureau and we are satisfied that it is no longer misleading.

Accordingly, the Bureau's assessment was that there was insufficient evidence to proceed further under the misleading representations provisions of the Act.

The inquiry was discontinued on October 16, 2002.

Home Audio and Visual Retail - Misleading Representations and Bait and Switch selling

An inquiry was initiated on February 18, 2000, following an application filed by six persons resident in Canada. It was alleged that a regional home audio and visual retail chain was (A) making false and misleading representations regarding product performance (B) advertising product warranties which were, in fact, unavailable and (C) regularly advertising bargain priced products for sale while not having reasonable supply of the products available for purchase.

Section 74.01 of the Competition Act prohibits the making of a materially false or misleading representation to the public. Subsection 74.04 prohibits "bait and switch" advertising which occurs when a product is advertised at a bargain price but is not available for sale in reasonable quantities.

The marketing practices of the retail chain were investigated and, on reviewing the information gathered, the Bureau's assessment was that there was insufficient evidence to proceed further under either the "bait and switch" provisions or misleading representations provisions of the Act.

The inquiry was discontinued on July 25, 2002.

Credit Card Protection Services

The Competition Bureau initiated this inquiry on October 31, 1999, on referral of information from the Montreal Urban Community Police Service (Service de police de la Communauté urbaine de Montréal (SPCUM). It was alleged that telemarketers were making false and misleading statements while offering American residents credit card protection services. Section 52.1 of the Competition Act prohibits telemarketers from making any representation that is false or misleading in a material respect. Further, the section requires them to disclose in a fair and reasonable manner the name of the company or person for who the caller is working, the nature of the product or business interest being promoted and the purpose of the call.

The representations at issue occurred during a limited time period and the company ceased operations after the police intervention. On reviewing the information provided by the police, the Bureau determined that there was insufficient evidence to refer the matter to the Attorney General of Canada.

The inquiry was discontinued on July 23, 2001.

Rental of commercial space in Sherbrooke-area shopping centres

The Competition Bureau received an application for inquiry alleging that certain commercial terms imposed by Iberville Development Ltd. on tenants of the Carrefour de l'Estrie shopping centre contravened the market restriction provisions of the Competition Act (section 77).

The complaint alleged that the radius clauses in the Carrefour de l'Estrie's lease agreements are detrimental to competition in the rental of commercial space in the Sherbrooke area.

Although the 16-km distance used in the radius clauses adopted by Iberville Development Ltd. is higher than the distances usually used in the industry, the Bureau concluded, following an in-depth and detailed study of the facts, that the radius clauses used by Iberville Development Ltd. are not likely to substantially lessen competition in the Sherbrooke area. The acquired information indicated that the leasing practices of Iberville Development Ltd. did not prevent a significant number of retailers from locating other than in the Carrefour de l'Estrie. It was determined that these retailers did not have the intention to open up a new store in the Sherbrooke area.

The inquiry was discontinued on June 18, 2001.

Greeting Card

The Competition Bureau received a complaint that major greeting card suppliers were using exclusive contracts to limit the sales outlets available to competitors. Following receipt of the complaint, interviews were conducted. The evidence showed that while some firms might be affected by the signing of exclusive contracts for the sale of greeting cards, sufficient competition remains. Thus the requirement under section 79 of the Competition Act that competition be lessened substantially has not been met.

The Bureau closed the file on April 15, 2001.

Cold Beverage

The Competition Bureau received a complaint that major suppliers of cold beverages were entering into exclusive contacts with private and public venues. Following receipt of the complaint, interviews were conducted. The evidence showed that while some firms might be affected by the signing of exclusive contracts for the sale of cold beverages, sufficient competition remains. Thus the requirement under section 79 of the Competition Act that competition be lessened substantially has not been met.

The Bureau closed the file on April 10, 2001.

Fertilizer Manufacturer and Distributors

The Competition Bureau received a complaint that a manufacturer of fertilizers, and its vertically integrated distributor, were seeking to drive the complainants out of business though a variety of anti-competitive conduct contrary to the conspiracy, predatory pricing and abuse of dominant position provisions of the Competition Act (sections 45, 50 and 79).

Market data showed that the distributor and manufacturer did not possess sufficient market power to achieve the anti-competitive objectives of which they were accused.

The information indicated that the distributor and the manufacturer priced their fertilzer, and set their terms and conditions of sale, in response to market forces.

The issue was resolved on March 31, 2000.

Sewer pipe

The Competition Bureau received a complaint that Canadian manufacturers had pressured pipe distributors in one province to refuse to deal in pipe imported from the U.S.A. The allegations were examined under the conspiracy provisions (section 45), and the price maintenance provisions (section 61) of the Competition Act.

Evidence of conspiracy or of price maintenance was inconclusive. Subsequently, the U.S. pipe manufacturer was able to establish a distribution network in the province and the prices for the affected pipe fell more than 20 per cent. In addition, all of the manufacturers have agreed to create or reinforce programs within their companies to ensure compliance with the Act.

The issue was resolved on March 31, 2000.

Video Cassette Distribution

The Competition Bureau received a complaint from representatives of a distributor of video cassettes and other media products alleging that certain motion picture studios have in place in Canada sales policies which are contrary to the conspiracy, price discrimination, promotional advertising and price maintenance provisions of sections 45, 50, 51 and 61, respectively, of the Competition Act.

None of the information supplied by the applicants, or obtained from other sources during the course of the inquiry, supported any of the allegations against the studios, with the following exception.  The basis for the allegations against one studio were supported by selected documents obtained by the distributor during a legal proceeding against the studio. However, representatives of the studio were able to provide the Bureau with plausible explanations for the documentary evidence, which did not involve violations of the Act.

The issue was resolved on March 31, 2000.