January 10, 2022
Practical Law Canada Competition, of which I am Lawyer Editor, published a new Legal Update, which discusses the Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision to partially certify a class action in relation to sections 45 and 46 of the Competition Act for packaged bread in Canada. Below is an excerpt with a link to Practical Law’s full Legal Update.
____________________
This Legal Update discusses a decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice relating to a motion to certify a class action in relation to sections 45 and 46 of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 (conspiracy and foreign-directed conspiracy). The Court partially certified the plaintiffs’ motion holding that they sufficiently established the requirements for certification of a price-fixing conspiracy agreement involving many of Canada’s major packaged bread producers and retailers under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 6. The Court held that the certified class is limited to direct and indirect purchasers of the defendants’ packaged bread and does not include their parent companies, fresh bread products or non-defendant supplied packaged bread.
On December 31, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued its decision to partially certify a price-fixing conspiracy class action under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 (CPA) against many of Canada’s major packaged bread producers and retailers (David v. Loblaw, 2021 CarswellOnt 19824 (Ont.S.C.J.) (David v. Loblaw)).
In this case, the plaintiffs sought to certify a price-fixing class action against competing packaged bread suppliers and retailers, including Loblaw Companies Ltd. (Loblaw), George Weston Ltd. (George Weston), Canada Bread Company, Metro, Sobeys Inc., Wal-Mart Canada Corp. and Giant Tiger Stores Ltd., among others. This civil proceeding parallels an ongoing Competition Bureau (Bureau) criminal investigation into alleged bread price-fixing commenced in 2015. For more information about civil and class actions under the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, see Practice Notes, Private Competition Law Actions and Competition Act Class Actions. For a discussion about earlier developments in this case, see Legal Update, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Clarifies the Application of Informer Privilege to Immunity Witnesses Under the Competition Act.
(…)
For the full Legal Update, see: https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-034-0285?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true
********************
SERVICES AND CONTACT
We are a Toronto based competition and advertising law firm offering business and individual clients efficient and strategic advice in relation to competition/antitrust, advertising, Internet and new media law and contest law. We also offer competition and regulatory law compliance, education and policy services to companies, trade and professional associations and government agencies.
Our experience includes advising clients in Toronto, Canada and the United States on the application of Canadian competition and regulatory laws and we have worked on hundreds of domestic and cross-border competition, advertising and marketing, promotional contest (sweepstakes), conspiracy (cartel), abuse of dominance, compliance, refusal to deal and pricing and distribution matters. For more information about our competition and advertising law services see: competition law services.
To contact us about a potential legal matter, see: contact
For more information about our firm, visit our website: Competitionlawyer.ca
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
