We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 15

Competition Bureau puts deferred payment plans under the microscope in misleading advertising charges against Canadian Furniture Retailers
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • July 17 2013

On July 9, 2013, the Competition Bureau announced that it would be pursuing civil charges of deceptive marketing under the Competition Act against


Industry Canada issues long-awaited revised draft Investment Canada Regulations
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • June 29 2012

On June 1, 2012, Industry Canada published long-awaited draft amendments to the Investment Canada Regulations


Canada's Commissioner wins prevent case - Tribunal orders divestiture of hazardous waste landfill
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • May 31 2012

On May 29, 2012, the Competition Tribunal ruled in favour of the Commissioner of Competition, and ordered CCS Corporation to divest a hazardous waste landfill site, the acquisition of which the Commissioner had alleged would result in a substantial prevention of competition in the market for hazardous waste disposal in northeastern British Columbia


Competition bureau releases statement on Cardinal Health's acquisition of Futuremed
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • April 19 2012

On April 16, 2012, Canada’s Competition Bureau issued a statement outlining the analysis it had undertaken of Cardinal Health’s then-proposed acquisition of Futuremed to conclude that, despite some concerns expressed by certain customers, the transaction was unlikely to result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in any relevant Canadian market


Supreme Court of Canada: average consumer is "credulous and inexperienced" for misleading advertisement purposes
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • April 18 2012

In February 2012, the SCC released its decision in Richard v. Time Inc., a case brought forward from the Quebec Court of Appeal, which considered the “general impression” test in relation to the misleading advertising provisions of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act


Canadian court comes down hard on misleading business directory scam
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • March 15 2012

On March 1, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court put an end to a deceptive marketing scam that had resulted in thousands of Canadians falling victim to false and misleading representations, to the tune of an estimated $7 million


Used car dealers association accuses insurance bureau of refusal to deal
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • September 20 2011

On September 9, 2011, the Competition Tribunal released a decision granting leave to the Used Car Dealers Association of Ontario (UCDA) to bring an application against the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) seeking redress under the “refusal to deal” provisions contained in section 75 of the Competition Act


Competition Bureau finds slimming creams not as effective as advertised
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • September 16 2011

The Competition Bureau announced last week that it has entered into a Consent Agreement with Beiersdorf Canada Inc., the Canadian distributor of Nivea, regarding misleading claims associated with Nivea's "My Silhouette" product


Bell Canada to pay $10-million penalty for misleading advertising
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • July 29 2011

On June 28, 2011, Bell Canada entered into a Consent Agreement with the Commissioner of Competition that will require Bell to pay a $10-million administrative monetary penalty for making false or misleading representations in its advertising regarding the prices consumers are required to pay for its Home Phone, Internet, Television, and Wireless services


Groupon falls afoul of UK advertising regulator
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • United Kingdom, Canada
  • July 8 2011

On June 8, 2011, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that online coupon provider Groupon, Inc. had misrepresented the ordinary selling price of a third party service that was advertised to Groupon’s online subscribers, and ordered Groupon to remove the advertisement from circulation