Discoverability, continuing effects, and Competition Act limitation periods
In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal left open the possibility that the discoverability principle may apply to the two-year limitation period established for private actions under section 36 of the Competition Act, but confirmed that the effects of a conspiracy are not a part of the offence and thus do not extend the limitation period. This decision has important implications for private actions under the Competition Act and possibly also for prosecutions of international conspiracies. Garford Pty Ltd. sued Dywidag Systems International, Canada Ltd. in August, 2008, for allegedly engaging in conspiracy and price fixing during negotiations ... [more] Full article
New conspiracy provision of the Competition Act in action
The Competition Bureau garnered its first conviction under the amended conspiracy provision of the Competition Act yesterday, as Domfoam International Inc. and Valle Foam Industries (1995) Inc. plead guilty to ... [more] Full article
Indirect Purchaser Cases to be Heard by Supreme Court
On December 1, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear appeals in two cases that raise the issue: can indirect purchasers sue to recover losses arising from a ... [more] Full article
Joint Venture Decision Criminal, Alberta Court Says
An Alberta court has held that a decision by joint operators of an oil field to sole source a contract constituted a conspiracy contrary to section 45 of the Competition Act, a criminal offence, and awarded damages to the company that lost out on the business. [more] Full article
Conspiracy Contributors
Michael Binetti
Michael Binetti, a partner of the firm, brings a proven litigation background plus extensive experience in arguing both trials and appeals. He has demonstrated his strategic legal capability and expertise in wide-ranging areas of litigation. Michael’s peers and clients have commented that Michael is an “excellent and creative lawyer,” “finds unique solutions to complex problems,” and that “Michael gets it and knows how to win.”
Kenneth A. Dekker
Kenneth Dekker, a partner of the firm, is a successful trial and appellate lawyer who is valued by his clients as a resourceful and practical litigation counsel. Over more than two decades, Ken has litigated noteworthy cases in a range of fields that include class action defence, securities and broker-dealer litigation and regulatory defence, corporate and shareholder disputes (including oppression and winding up cases), defamation, civil fraud litigation, disputes over contracts, injunctions, professional liability litigation, employment litigation and cross-border litigation issues. Ken has appeared before all levels of courts in Ontario, including the Ontario Court of Justice, the Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal for Ontario, as well as before the Supreme Court of Canada. Ken also represents and advises clients in regulatory matters before the Investment Industry Organization of Canada (IIROC), the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA) and the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC). Ken has been ranked as Repeatedly Recommended for Securities Litigation by Lexpert, for Corporate and Commercial Litigation by Best Lawyers of Canada, and he has been given the highest available rating of AV, or pre-eminent, by his peers on Martindale-Hubbell.
Masiel A. Matus
Masiel has a broad commercial litigation practice and represents both national and international clients in a variety of complex matters. Masiel has experience litigating cases involving professional negligence, commercial leasing and real property disputes, insurance, contract disputes, shareholder disputes, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, employment matters and defamation claims.
