Annual Report 1996/97 - Statistical Data

*Click here for a downloadable Acrobat version

Includes statistical tables, Proceedings under the Act and Discontinued Inquiries

---

Bureau operations

In 1996-1997 the operating budget for the Bureau was $19.3 million including carry forward. In addition, $2 million was received from the Department's reserve to meet operational requirements. A major portion of this budget, $13,230,000, was allocated to salaries for 245 authorized full time staff. As of March 31, 1997, the Bureau was authorized to staff 242 positions consisting of 17 executives, 12 economists, 151 commerce officers and program managers, and 62 employees carrying out informatics, administrative services and support functions. The Bureau also funds the costs for three lawyers employed by the Department of Justice who are assigned to the Department Legal Services Unit.

The Bureau has administrative responsibility for collecting fines imposed by the courts. During 1996-1997, $8,636,500 in fines was imposed of which $4,572,333.50 was imposed and paid during the year in eight cases and $4,064,166.50 was outstanding in 13 cases. An additional $103,000 outstanding from seven cases in a previous year was paid, giving a total of $4,675,333.50 paid during the year and credited to the government's Consolidated Revenue Fund. At year end a total of $636,159.07 remained outstanding.

---

Table 1 - Information and compliance data

	Misleading advertising and deceptive marketing		Other sections of the act		Total
	1995-96	1996-97	1995-96	1996-97	1995-96	1996-97
Information requests (public)	32,681	27,594	1,290	1,901	33,971	29,495
Oral advisory opinions	42	0	60	0	102	0
Written advisory opinions	222	329	18	17	240	170
Media contacts	50	76	222	345	272	421
Speeches, seminars and consultative meetings	22	10	58	70	80	80

 

Table 2 - Selected activities of the Competition Bureau (Excluding misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices)

	1994-95	1995-96	1996-97
Number of complaints, examinations and inquiries
Total complaints	1,658	1,424	2,040
Examinations (two or more days of review)	74	83	77
Applications for inquiries under section 9	7	6	10
Inquiries in progress at year end	41	37	45
Disposition of matters
Inquiries formally discontinued	16	29	9
Matters referred to the Attorney General of Canada	7	4	0
Matters referred where further action is not warranted	0	1	0
Prosecutions or other proceedings commenced	3	4	1
Applications to the Competition Tribunal	5	4	3
- Mergers	2	1	3
- Other reviewable practices	3	3	0
Representations before regulatory bodies	11	10	11

 

Table 3 - Civil matters - selected activities

 

	1994-95	1995-96	1996-97
Number of complaints, examinations and inquiries
Total complaintséinformation contacts	331	456	561
Examinations commenced (two or more days of review)	21	28	31
Application for inquiries under section 9 (six-resident application to the Director for inquiry)	5	4	2
Inquiries in progress at year end	10	13	16
Written advisory opinions	0	4	1
Disposition of inquiries
Inquiries resolved by alternative case resolution	2	3	4
Applications to the Competition Tribunal	3	1	0

 

Table 4 - Criminal matters - selected activities

	1994-95	1995-96	1996-97
Number of complaints, examinations and inquiries
Total complaints/information requests	1,048	968	1,479
Examinations commenced	53	55	46
Application for inquiries under section 9	2	2	8
Inquiries in progress at year end	31	24	29
Disposition of inquiries
Matters referred to the Attorney General of Canada	7	4	0
Matters where charges were laid	3	4	1
Matters where Attorney General declined to proceed or withdrew charges (may include matters referred during previous years)	0	1	0
Matters before the Courts (may include matters referred during previous years)	16	14	10
Disposition of prosecutions (findings of guilt, guilty pleas, acquittals, stay of proceedings, orders of prohibition - may include maters referred during previous years)	16	8	22
Other activities
Examinations resolved by information contacts	23	16	32
Written advisory opinions	28	14	14
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) requests	2	3	1
Searches	5	4	0

 

Table 5 - Merger examinations

 

	1994-95	1995-96	1996-97
Examinations commenced (two or more days of review; includes notifiable transactions, advance ruling certificates and examinations commenced for other reasons; some examinations commenced may arise from notifications and advance ruling certificate requests in relation to the same transactioons)	193	228	319
Notifiable transactions	74	100	140
Advance ruling certificate requests	139	142	224
Examinations concluded
As posing no issue under the Act	183	204	296
With monitoring only	2	4	2
With pre-closing restructuring	0	0	1
With post-closing restructuring/undertakings	0	0	0
With consent orders	0	0	1
Through contested proceedings	1	0	0
Parties abandoned proposed mergers in whole or in part as a result of Director's position	3	3	0
Total examinations concluded (includes advance ruling certificates and advisory opinions issued and matters which have been concluded or withdrawn before the Competition Tribunal)	189	215	306
- advance ruling certificates issued (included in "Total examinations concluded")	106	121	188
- advisory opinions issued (included in "Total examinations concluded")	11	10	2
Examinations ongoing at year end	39	52	65
Total examinations during the year	228	267	371
Applications and Notices of Application before the Tribunal
Concluded or withdrawn	1	1	1
Ongoing	1	2	2

Table 6 - Misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices offences - selected activities

(Competition Bureau regional offices were closed during 1995-96 fiscal year and all marketing practices activities consolidated at headquarters. Many figures will therefore show a considerable difference from previous years'.)

	1994-95	1995-96	1996-97
Number of complaints, examinations and inquiries
Total complaints received	8,500	6,752	6,277
Applications for inquiries under section 9	2	5	2
Inquiries commenced	38	8	18
Disposition of inquiries
Completed examinations/inquiries	349	278	383
Information contacts (includes only written contacts)	762	86	246
Inquiries formally discontinued
- cases involving undertakings (discontinued inquiries involving undertakings are reported for the fiscal year in which they were discontinued; accordingly, these may not coincide with the actual number of undertakings received in any given fiscal year)	10	9	8
- other cases	16	10	17
Undertakings received	4	4	4
Matters referred to the Attorney General of Canada	23	7	3
Matters where further action is not warranted (may include matters referred during previous years)	0	3	0
Prosecutions commenced (may include matters referred during previous years)	22	7	4
Prohibition orders without conviction	0	1	0
Prosecutions concluded (may include matters referred during previous years)
- convictions	24	14	8
- non-convictions (includes conditional and absolute discharges, withdrawls, stays of proceedings, etc. It should be noted that charges against some of the accused are often withdrawn after other accused in the same case have pleaded guilty. Accordingly, there is some overlap.)	8	4	2
Total fines	$1,407,400	$879,850	$241,500

---

PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT

---

Marketing Practices Branch

---

Proceedings completed

Accused convicted

Investors Choice Product Brokerage Limited

Pan Tec Inc.

600620 Saskatchewan Ltd c.o.b. as Micro Ear 2000 & Mr. Jack Douglas

DFD Telebroadcasting and Marvin Fine

The Success Group Inc.

Premier Health Club.

Accused not convicted

Bloomsbury & Butterfield Auctioneers Appraisers Ltd and Shahram Mirkalami (Stay of Proceedings)

Interocean Enterprises Inc. c.o.b. as Canadian Wildlife Collection, Stephan Chan and Mervyn Bearss (dismissed)

Nassir Siddiki (withdrawal)

David Kaleniuk (withdrawal)

Proceedings commenced

The Office Supply Centre (841299 Ontario Limited) & Richard Mellon

Click Modelling & Talent Agency of Canada c.o.b. as HMI International Model and Talent Agencies & Shannon Hoehn

Integrity Group (Canada) Inc.

First Canadian Publishers et al.

Prohibition orders pursuant to subsection 34(1)

The Success Group Inc.

Pan Tec Inc.

DFD Telebroadcasting Inc. and Marvin Fine

891249 Ontario Limited c.o.b. as Premier Health Clubs

600620 Saskatchewan Ltd c.o.b. as Micro Ear 2000 and Mr. Jack Douglas

---

Criminal Matters Branch

---

Proceedings Completed

Accused Convicted

Section 45

Gestion de rebuts DMP Inc.

Pierre Paré

Serge Brière

Robert Caron

New Oji

Mitsubishi Paper Mills Ltd

Ciment Québec Inc.

Lafarge Québec Inc.

Ciment St-Laurent Inc.

Béton Orléans Inc.

John Tindale

Sections 45, 50(1)(b), 50(1)(c)

Jacques Perrault (also s.61)

École de conduite Tecnic Aubé Inc.

École de conduite Lauzon Inc.

Le Groupe Lauzon Inc.

2172-3572 Québec Inc.

École de conduite Tecnic Estrie Inc.

École de conduite Asbestrie Inc.

Yves Aubé

André Comeau

Section 61(1)(b)

Fédération des arpenteurs-géomètres du Québec

Section 64

Jeff Pickup

Accused Not Convicted

Prohibition Orders Pursuant to Subsection 34(2)

Section 61

Safilo Canada

Proceedings Commenced

Section 45

Baerg Surveys Ltd.

George Baerg and Forster, R.S.

Altacan Surveying & Engineering Ltd

John Yeun

Bayda & Associates Surveys Inc.

Bodian Bayda

Brian Doyle Alberta Land Surveyor

CES Surveys Ltd.

Canadian Engineering Surveys Inc.

Rae Sutherland

Gilmore Surveys (Arctic) Ltd.

Duncan Gillmore (Senior)

Hagen Surveys (1982) Ltd.

Jack Hagen

Harland & Higgins Land Surveyors

James Harland

David Higgins

Heacock R.N.

Kiriak & Associates Ltd.

Walter Kiriak

Norram Surveys Inc.

Mohamad Nouraldin

Spartan Surveys Ltd

Harvey Cumming

Universal Surveys Inc.

Michael Porylo

Sections 45, 47

Hélicoptères Abitibi Limitée

Héli Max Limitée

Essor-Transport Inc.

Héli-Transport Inc.

Hélicoptère Nordic Limitée

Héli-Manicouagan Inc.

Hélicoptères Viking Limitée

Héli-Excel Inc.

Héli Express Inc.

Héli Forex Inc.

Air Alma Inc.

L'Association québecoise des transporteurs aériens Inc.

Brian Jenner

Sections 61(1)(a), 61(1)(b)

Luxottica Canada Inc.

Alternative Case Resolutions

Section 45

Chicken Processors

Protective Packaging (also s.46)

Hardwood Flooring (also s.61)

Airport Taxis

Recreational Vehicles (also s.61)

Dry Cleaners

(2) Septic Tank Cleaning Services

Section 47

Laboratories

Section 61

Children's Wear

Wine

Beer and Wine Kits

(2) Maternity Related Products

(5) Real Estate Brokerage (also s.34, s.45)

(3) Pet Supplies

Casual Clothing

Motorcyle Parts

Candles

Book Store

Sodium Chloride

Footwear

Section 75

Electronic Testing Tools

---

Civil Matters Branch

---

Applications to the Competition Tribunal

Matters Pending

Variation of CANYPS order

Variation to order re. The D & B Companies of Canada Ltd.

Matters Completed

Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc.

Interac Inc.

Alternative Case Resolutions

Cameras

Heating Oil

Credit Reporting

Magazine-Base Fund Raising Services

Regulatory Representations before the CRTC

Telecommunications

Local Interconnection and Network Component Unbundling (Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-36)

Local Service Pricing Options (Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-49/56)

Forbearance Dominant Carriers (Telecom Public Notice CRTC 96-26)

Broadcasting

Regulation of Broadcast Distribution (Telecom Public Notice CRTC 96-69)

Other regulatory representations

Canada Post Mandate Review

Beer - Régie Des Alcools du Québec

Special Import Measures Act Legislative Review - Joint House of Commons Committee

Ontario Electricity - Advisory Committee in Ontario's Electricity System

Transportation of Natural Gas Liquids - National Energy Board

Retail Access and Unbundled Tariffs (Electricity) - British Columbia Utilities Commission Market Structure Review

Manitoba Public Utilities Board - Natural Gas Local Distribution Companies

---

Discontinued Inquiries Marketing Practices Branch

---

Undertakings

(Where the receipt of an undertaking is the impetus for the discontinuance of an inquiry, reference can be made to the summary of the case which appears in the issue of the Misleading Advertising Bulletin - MAB - noted.)

Industry	Section of the Act	Nature of inquiry and conclusion reached
Furniture	52(1)(a)	1035645 Ontario Inc c.o.b. as SB Liquidators.MAB 1/2-1995
Household products	52(1)(a)	Lepage's Limited. MAB 1/1996
Pharmaceutical products	52(1)(a)	Meditrust Pharmacy Services Inc. MAB 1/1996
Water heaters	52(1)(a)	Rheem Canada Ltd./Ltée. MAB 3/4-1996
Paint products	52(1)(a) and 52(1)(d)	St. Clair Paint & Walpaper Corporation. MAB 3/4-1996
Wedding gowns	52(1)(a) and 52(1)(d)	Jessica Bridal Importing Ltd. MAB 3/4-1996
Tires	52(1)(a)	Goodyear Canada Inc. MAB 3/4-1996
Leather products	52(1)(a) and 52(1)(b)	Delane Trading Company Ltd. MAB 1/1996

Other Reasons

Insulation	52(1)(a) and 52(1)(b)	On April 12, 1994, after having been provided with reason to believe that offences had been committed contrary to paragraphs 52(1)(a) and 52(1)(b), the Bureau commenced an inquiry into performance claims contained in television commercials and in brochures involving wool insulation. The company modified its advertising by removing the contentious claims and these claims have not been repeated. The impact of the claims on the marketplace and on the company's market share was negligible. The inquiry was discontinued on May 30, 1996.
Gasoline	52(1)(a)	This inquiry was commenced on July 26, 1996 following receipt of a section 9 application by six residents of Canada alleging that an advertising campaign presented an inaccurate picture of the company's motives and operations. Investigation of the matter determined that the representations contained in the promotional campaign were consistent with past and planned development strategies of the company and that there were no reasonable grounds for belief that the representations were false or misleading in a material respect. The inquiry was discontinued on March 17, 1997.
Real estate	52(1)(a)	This inquiry began on June 5, 1995, in response to a section 9 application by six residents of Canada regarding an advertisement indicating that purchasers of homes in a housing development would be entitled to complimentary playing privileges on an adjacent golf course. It was alleged that the advertisement was misleading in that there were additional costs associated with the playing privileges. It was determined that the company advised callers of the extra fees, they informed their sales staff of the fee structure and they told buyers of the total costs. It was also concluded that a home buyer's purchase decision would not be influenced by the extra costs. The inquiry was discontinued on May 17, 1996.
Investment advisory publisher	52(1)(a)	This inquiry was commenced on March 7, 1990, following receipt of allegations that the company misled its subscribers by representing that they would realize potential tax savings by following information it published. During the course of the inquiry, it was determined that the matter had only a very limited impact on the public. In addition, the promotional campaign giving rise to the complaint was not repeated and no further complaints have been received concerning this publisher. The inquiry was discontinued on May 2, 1996.
Government lottery	52(1)(a)	This inquiry began on March 9, 1994 , in response to a section 9 application by six residents of Canada in respect of allegations that the promoters of a government lottery misled the public by creating the impression that the odds of winning a jackpot were higher than other similar lotteries. Legal opinions indicated that government lotteries were not within the ambit of the Act. In addition, information was received indicating that an accurate disclosure of the chances of winning was, in fact, conveyed to the public. The inquiry was discontinued on April 16, 1996.
Automobile financing companies	52(1)(a)	This inquiry began on March 26, 1996 , in response to a section 9 application by six residents of Canada, in respect of allegations that automobile financing companies were misleading the public by not disclosing that an acquisition fee was added to the capital cost of leasing an automobile. During the inquiry it was determined that automobile financing companies were only responsible for the administration of vehicle leases and not for the promotion of vehicle leasing. Accordingly, they were not making public representations necessary for the application of the Act. In addition, it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the failure of an automobile manufacturer to disclose acquisition fee costs (and all manufacturers, save one, did disclose acquisition fees in vehicle leasing agreements) could be capable of affecting a consumer's decision to lease a vehicle. The inquiry was discontinued on September 9, 1996.
Jewelry	52(1)(d)	This inquiry was initiated on May 3, 1991, following the receipt of complaints alleging that a jewelry store chain had inflated the ordinary selling price for advertised diamond rings to show exaggerated savings when compared to the sale price. During the course of the inquiry, a warrant to enter and search the four retail stores of the company was executed on June 26, 1993. The documentary evidence seized during the search proved inconclusive as the jewelry items were inadequately described and the sales records were incomplete. It was concluded that it was not possible to determine the prices at which the jewelry items were actually sold by the retail chain and whether the advertised ordinary selling prices were the prices at which a substantial volume of sales had occurred. The inquiry was discontinued on April 10, 1996.
Blinds	52(1)(a)	This inquiry began on February 12, 1991, following the receipt of a complaint alleging that a retail seller of blinds was misleading the public through offering a continuous sale - a product was offered at the same "sale price" for several months. During the course of the inquiry, it was determined that the relevant representations had a very limited distribution to the public. In addition, no further complaints were received concerning this retailer and in 1995 the company went out of business. The inquiry was discontinued on April 2, 1996.
Automobile manufacturer	52(1)(a) & 51(1)(d)	On June 13, 1994, an inquiry was initiated in respect of allegations that advertisements containing a "Was" price and a "Save" price were misleading in that the "Was" price reflected the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price, a price at which the vehicle had never been sold, thereby making the "Was" and the "Sale" prices materially misleading. The evidence obtained during the inquiry revealed that the company had relied on advice from its advertising agency that the campaign did not raise an issue under the Act. The advertisement in question was withdrawn immediately by the company after the matter was brought to its attention. Since that time, the company has not published any similar advertisements. The inquiry was discontinued on April 2, 1996.
Restaurant	52(1)(a)	This inquiry was commenced on March 26, 1996, following receipt of a six residents application alleging that a brochure published by the company stating that vegetable oil was used in the preparation of their food was misleading. Evidence obtained during the inquiry revealed that the matter was more appropriately dealt with by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada under the Food and Drug Act. The matter was being considered by that agency. The inquiry was discontinued on July 12, 1996.
Cameras	52(1)(a)	This inquiry began on January 31, 1995, following the receipt of a complaint alleging that a company did not disclose cameras as being refurbished, thereby giving the impression that the cameras were new. Evidence obtained during the inquiry revealed that it was not possible to trace cameras which were refurbished and that even if they were, there was no evidence that the company knew or ought to have known that they were refurbished. The inquiry was discontinued on May 9, 1996.
Employment agent	52(1)(a)	This inquiry began on November 23, 1993, following the receipt of complaints alleging that representations contained in the "Help Wanted" section of the newspaper were misleading in that the advertiser was not an exclusive employment agent as represented. On November 25, 1993, a warrant to enter and search the premises of the agent was executed and it was determined that the individual had vacated the premises and his whereabouts were unknown. The inquiry was discontinued on April 10, 1996.
Credit collections	52(1)(a)	This inquiry began on August 3, 1994, following the receipt of complaints alleging that a company had made a materially misleading representation by failing to disclose that spokespersons for the company in paid advertisements were also serving as members of the Board of Directors of the company. During the course of the inquiry, it was determined that the failure to disclose the relationships of the spokespersons was not a material misrepresentation, as required for the application of the Act. The inquiry was discontinued on April 25, 1996.
Denturists	52(1)(a)	This inquiry was commenced on February 9, 1996, following receipt of a section 9 application by six residents of Canada alleging that advertisements published on behalf of an industry association contained misleading representations as to the type of treatment their members could provide. Evidence obtained during the inquiry revealed that this type of advertising was regulated by a provincial body, and this agency obtained an undertaking from the industry association that all future advertisements would be screened before publication. The representations in question have not been repeated. The inquiry was discontinued on May 3, 1996.
Carpets	52(1)(a)	This inquiry was commenced on December 22, 1993, following receipt of a section 9 application by six residents of Canada alleging that advertisements published on behalf of carpet auctioneers were misleading in that the sale was not a government distress sale as indicated in the advertisements. Information obtained during the course of the inquiry concluded that the representations were not materially misleading as required for the application of the Act. The inquiry was discontinued on April 9, 1996.
Carpets	52(1)(a)	This inquiry was commenced on December 22, 1993, following receipt of a section 9 application by six residents of Canada alleging that advertisements published on behalf of carpet auctioneers were misleading in that the carpets offered for sale were of an inferior quality than that represented in the advertisements. During the course of the inquiry, charges under the Act were laid against the individual responsible for the advertisements for other misleading advertisements relating to the sale of carpets and against a related company under the Textiles Labelling Act. Both of these cases resulted in convictions and significant fines. The inquiry was discontinued on April 9, 1996.
Long-distance re-seller	52(1)(a)	This inquiry began on November 16, 1994, following the receipt of information alleging various misrepresentations made during the course of door-to-door sales. It was alleged that the result of these misrepresentations was that customers switched their long-distance telephone service to this company without their knowledge or consent. During the inquiry the company sold its customer base to a competing entity, and ceased operations. The inquiry was discontinued on April 10, 1996.

Criminal Branch

Packaging material	50(1)(a)	In late 1994, the Bureau received complaints that a manufacturer of protective packaging material was engaging in a practice of price discrimination, price maintenance and predatory pricing to the detriment of certain competitors and customers. Following an inquiry into this matter, the Bureau concluded that the company's pricing policy, which provided different price discounts to distributors depending upon the particular end-user customer and upon the resale price of the product, raised issues under both the price discrimination and price maintenance provisions of the Act. The Bureau, however, found no evidence of predatory pricing. To address the Bureau's concerns, the manufacturer agreed to make price discounts available to all distributors, and to advise the distributors that they may resell the product at a price of their own choosing. When these undertakings were fulfilled, the Bureau discontinued this inquiry.
Alcoholic beverages	45(1)(c), 61(1)(a) and 79	Following receipt of a six resident application in October 1995, the Bureau commenced an inquiry into allegations of price fixing, price maintenance and abuse of dominant position involving suppliers of alcoholic beverages in the province of Ontario. In the course of the inquiry Bureau staff met with senior officials of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario(L.C.B.O.) and with the major suppliers of alcoholic beverages in the province. The inquiry did not uncover any information that supported the allegations of price fixing or price maintenance by suppliers of alcoholic beverages in Ontario. In addition, the allegation of abuse of dominant position by these suppliers was investigated and it was concluded that grounds did not exist for the making of a remedial order by the Competition Tribunal. With respect to the allegations of price fixing and price maintenance it was determined that pursuant to the Liquor Control Act, the L.C.B.O. has the power to fix prices for the sale of these beverages. Consultations were undertaken with the Department of Justice who concurred with the Bureau that the regulated conduct defense would apply in any proceedings involving these suppliers and their prices. In September 1996 the inquiry was discontinued and the applicants and the Minister of Industry Canada so informed.
Gasoline inquiries		During the Spring and Summer of 1996, four gasoline inquiries were initiated following the receipt of applications pursuant to section 9 of the Act. There was an allegation that the major gasoline companies had engaged in a national, price fixing conspiracy. A second allegation was made that Ultramar Canada Inc.'s Value Plus marketing campaign was a predatory pricing practice aimed at eliminating the competition and was misleading. A third allegation addressed the issue of abuse of dominant position as it related to Ultramar and other regional and national petroleum companies. The fourth allegation that the national and regional petroleum companies were selling gasoline at prices lower than acquisition costs was also investigated. There was a fifth allegation that Ultramar made false and misleading claims in its advertising campaign. All of these allegations were thoroughly investigated. Representatives of the six-resident applicants, major petroleum companies, independents, importers and other persons with relevant information were examined under oath. Some of those examined under oath were also asked to provide documentation in response to questions put to them by counsel for the Bureau. Interviews were also conducted in a number of local markets. In addition, one industry and two economic consultants were contracted to report independently on key aspects of the allegations. In all of these inquiries no evidence was uncovered to support any of the allegations made. In March 1997, the Bureau discontinued its inquiries into these matters and so informed the applicants and the Minister of Industry Canada. A detailed backgrounder and copies of the consultants reports were made available to the public.

Civil Matters Branch

Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC), negligence insurance	79	The Bureau received in November, 1994, a six resident application alleging that the LSUC's mandatory negligence insurance scheme for lawyers precluded them from purchasing insurance in the open market and hence constituted an abuse of dominant position contrary to section 79 of the Competition Act. In May, 1995, the LSUC made an application to the Ontario Court (General Division) challenging the Bureau's authority to inquire into the LSUC's insurance program. In November, 1995, the application was heard. The court ruled that the Bureau did not have jurisdiction to continue with its investigation of the LSUC and also that the LSUC had the requisite authority to maintain a mandatory insurance plan for its members. In light of the court's decision concerning the Bureau's lack of jurisdiction to inquire into the matter, the inquiry was discontinued.
Waste disposal services	79	The Bureau commenced an inquiry in June, 1995, following the receipt of a complaint against the three largest companies providing lift-on-board, commercial, containerized solid waste removal services in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. It was alleged that they jointly controlled this market and were maintaining their dominance through the use of similar restrictive contract terms, predatory or selective pricing, acquisitions and other similar policies. Following the examination of considerable evidence obtained in this inquiry, the Bureau concluded that it could not be established that these firms have been engaging in coordinated conduct that would lead to a finding that they jointly controlled the relevant market, nor could it be concluded that they have engaged in a practice of anti-competitive acts resulting in the substantial lessening of competition. Accordingly, this matter was discontinued.
Magazine-based fund raising services	79, 75	The Bureau commenced an inquiry in May 1996, following the receipt of a complaint that the dominant supplier of magazine-based school fund raising plans in Canada was engaging in a practice of anti-competitive acts directed at its only competitor, with the result that competition had been substantially lessened. On the basis of the preliminary examination, there were reasonable grounds to believe that the activities by the dominant firm and a related refusal by a major magazine publisher to continue supplying the dominant firm's competitor, provided grounds for the making of section 79 and section 75 Orders by the Competition Tribunal. Negotiations with the parties under inquiry ultimately resulted in a settlement being reached, whereby the dominant firm ended certain alleged anti-competitive conduct and the complainant was re-authorized by the major publisher to carry its magazines. As steps were taken to correct the anti-competitive situation, the inquiry was discontinued. The Bureau has subsequently determined that this settlement has in fact restored competition in the market.
Motor vehicles	75	The Bureau received a six resident application in 1995 alleging that a motor vehicle manufacturer was refusing to supply a number of its franchised dealers with an adequate supply of motor vehicles and that there was a basis for an application by the Bureau under section 75 of the Act, the refusal to deal provision. The vehicles that were not being supplied to the franchised dealers were not vehicles covered by the franchise agreements in effect with those dealers. No evidence was obtained during the inquiry to suggest that there was anti-competitive purpose behind the refusal to supply the dealers with the vehicles they sought. To the contrary, the evidence indicated that the manufacturer was making changes in its distribution practices so as to maintain its competitiveness in the retail market. Accordingly, the Bureau concluded that there was no basis for an application to the Tribunal in this matter and the inquiry was discontinued.

Mergers Branch

Le Groupe Vidéotron Ltée /CFCF Inc.

On April 21, 1996, Groupe Vidéotron Ltée (Vidéotron) made a public offer to purchase all the shares of CFCF Inc. (CFCF). Upon the completion of the proposed transaction Vidéotron would become the only provider of TV cable services in the Montreal area and would own the two largest French language private TV networks in the province of Quebec. By June 1996, Vidéotron had acquired practically all the shares of CFCF. However, these shares were put into the custody of a trustee so as to ensure that there was no transfer of control of CFCF until the CRTC had reviewed the transaction. In addition, on June 28, 1996, the acquirer gave the Bureau a written undertaking that it would not seek to acquire or use confidential information relating to Télévision Quatre Saisons ("TQS"), (a French language television network owned by CFCF) in order to ensure that the competitive dynamic of the marketplace was maintained until the Bureau's review of the transaction was completed. The Bureau's review focused on the impact of the transaction on competition in the provision of television air time to advertisers and in the purchase of French language television programs from independent producers. On February 27, 1997, the CRTC announced its decision to approve the transfer of effective control of the cable systems owned by CF Cable TV Inc. in Quebec and Ontario to Vidéotron, but denied Vidéotron's other applications and ordered that CFCF's television broadcasting operations be sold to third parties not related to Vidéotron. The following day, Vidéotron asked the trustee to initiate the sale of TQS as requested by the CRTC. In light of this development the Bureau has closed its inquiry into this matter.

Crown Cork and Seal Company, Inc. /Carnaudmetalbox, S.A.

The Bureau did not challenge the acquisition of the shares of Carnaudmetalbox, S.A. (CMB) by Crown Cork and Seal Company, Inc. (Crown U.S.). These firms controlled the only two major Canadian companies that manufacture and sell metal vacuum closures as well as look after the supply and servicing of related packaging equipment in the food and beverage industries. To address the Bureau's concerns, the parties entered into an amendment of the Licensing Agreement in which Crown agreed to dispose of certain intellectual property rights as well as other rights contained in the agreement with White Cap Inc., a U.S.-based company and the largest manufacturer of metal vacuum closures in North America. This Licensing Agreement prohibited White Cap from selling the closures in Canada without first obtaining Crown's consent, and prohibited Crown from selling in the United States without White Cap's consent. This decision means that Canadian metal vacuum closure customers are now free to purchase closures from White Cap, Crown or any other supplier, thereby guaranteeing a second source of supply and encouraging competitive pricing of the product.