This table summarises all completed investigations by Canada’s competition authority (the Competition Bureau Canada—CBC) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2024 Investigations under section 45 the Competition Act 1985 Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Paving• Pavages Maska Inc Restrictive agreement—bid rigging • Infringement decision issued—23/05/2024; fines totalling $100,000 imposed Investigations under section 79 the Competition Act 1985 Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Real estate• Yukon Real Estate Association (YREA) Concerns YREA abused its dominant position by requirement that certain prospective members must live in the Yukon for a year before they can become a member of the YREA • Commitments accepted—26/04/2024 2023 Investigations under section 45 the Competition Act 1985 Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Shipping

Canada has initiated World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute proceedings against the United States over newly announced ad valorem duties. The duties, set at 25% on non-energy goods and 10% on energy goods from Canada, are being challenged as inconsistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 and WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. The formal request for consultations was filed on 5 March 2025 under reference WT/DS634/1, initiating a 60-day consultation period before potential panel adjudication.

A conversation with Mark Katz, partner at Canadian law firm Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, on key issues regarding merger control in Canada. NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Canada and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. General overview of the key merger control regimes in Canada General overview of the Competition Act merger control regime The Competition Act (Act) authorises the Commissioner of Competition (the Commissioner) to challenge merger transactions that are likely to prevent or lessen competition substantially in a relevant market affecting Canada. The Commissioner heads the Competition Bureau (the Bureau) which is responsible for investigating merger transactions to determine if they are likely to have the prescribed anti-competitive effect. The definition of merger for these purposes is quite broad. In addition to acquisitions of control (defined as the acquisition of a greater than 50% interest in the target entity), a merger includes any transaction by which one party acquires or establishes a significant interest in the business of another. Significant interest is interpreted as the ability

Arbitration analysis: This case involved an application to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice brought under the Arbitration Act 1991 (Ontario) to appoint an arbitrator where the parties were unable to agree on an appointment. The same parties were involved in two arbitrations which involved the same underlying contractual documents and similar issues. One party sought to appoint the same arbitrator that had presided over the first arbitration, whereas the other party disagreed and proposed appointing a new arbitrator from a list of proposed candidates. The court determined that while repeat arbitrators may seem efficient, an arbitrator does not maintain continued authority over their decisions, which must stand on their own strength once rendered. Therefore, an arbitrator does not have unique qualifications or authority for a particular dispute due to their previous experience. The court also determined that arbitrators with judicial experience may be better suited than those with commercial experience for cases involving res judicata issues, since this is a principle that engages issues of the judicial process. Written by Elizabeth Montpetit, senior counsel at Taylor Wessing LLP.

Law360: The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed the enforcement of an arbitral award in a dispute over a contract between aircraft manufacturer Bombardier Inc and Greece's Ministry of National Defence, saying a Canadian bank had to refuse payment to the beneficiary of a letter of credit because of fraud.

Arbitration analysis: Can a thumbs up emoji in a text message constitute acceptance of a binding legal agreement? In a case that is sure to be an instant classic among contract law professors, the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan has held that it can. The Court considered the wider factual matrix of the parties’ dealings, and held that a valid contract was created when the plaintiff sent a picture of a paper contract, and the defendant responded with a thumbs up emoji. Each case will turn on its own facts, but parties seeking to enforce an agreement made by way of text messages (which may include, as here, non-text elements) now have some clear guidance from a court of superior jurisdiction. Parties should be mindful of the basic tenets of contract formation and should not presume that an agreement made in an ‘untraditional’ medium will be unenforceable. Written by Kyle R McMillan, associate at McCarthy Tétrault LLP, Calgary.

Arbitration analysis: In Baffinland Iron Mines LP v Tower-EBC G.P., S.E.N.C, the Ontario Court of Appeal examined a principle of contractual interpretation (the presumption of consistent expression) and confined its application to a basic premise. Simply put, the court determined that, while there is a presumption that language in a contract is used consistently, this presumption does not apply to differently worded, but mutually reinforcing, phrasing with the same meaning. It concluded that, when assessing the legal effect of an arbitration agreement, that the phrases ‘finally settled’ and ‘final and binding’ had effectively the same meaning. Written by Ira Nishisato (partner), Hugh Meighen (partner), Erin Peters (senior associate) and Stéphanie Gagné (associate), of BLG Canada’s Law Firm. The authors represented TEBC before the Superior Court and Court of Appeal.

The Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has announced that the Canary Wharf Group has committed to the building safety repairs pledge and will remediate life critical fire safety works in buildings over 11 metres in England.

From 13 June 2014, the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 replace the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 and Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer's Home or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008. The regulations apply if you enter into an off-premises or distance contract with a consumer client. At the heart of the regulations is the duty to give the client: • notice of their right to cancel (called Instructions for cancellation), and • a prescribed Cancellation form If time is of the essence and you have to draft the will quickly, you will need an express request from your client to start work during the cancellation period—see precedent: Request to start work during cancellation period. Firms may, however, feel it is impractical to obtain an express request to start work during the cancellation period and be concerned that waiting for the cancellation period to expire may breach other professional obligations or expose the firm to a negligence claim. What

This Practice Note considers the various cancellation and withdrawal rights that are available in relation to credit agreements and consumer hire agreements regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974). In both cases, it assumes the agreements are neither secured on land nor used to finance the purchase of land. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Right of withdrawal from a credit agreement. Three categories of agreements This Practice Note concerns three broad categories of agreements: • a regulated credit agreement where the amount of credit does not exceed £60,260 (a figure introduced as a result of the UK’s implementation of the Consumer Credit Directive (Directive 2008/48/EC) (CCD) in 2011) • a regulated credit agreement where the amount of credit exceeds £60,260, and • a regulated consumer hire agreement The various cancellation or withdrawal rights For the purposes of this Practice Note, an agreement falling within any of the three categories set out above may have a right to withdraw

Cancellation clauses—doorstep or distance sales contracts 1 Right to cancel 1.1 You can cancel this contract within 14 days without giving any reason.[ However, for some goods you do not have the right to cancel or you may lose the right to cancel in certain circumstances. This is further explained in clause 1.6 below.] 1.2 [The cancellation period will expire 14 days after the day on which you, or someone you nominate, receives [the goods OR the last good OR the last lot or piece OR the first good]. OR 1.3 The cancellation period will expire 14 days after the day on which you, or someone you nominate, receives: 1.3.1 the goods (unless one of the options below applies to your order); or 1.3.2 the last good (if you ordered multiple goods in one order and they are being delivered separately); or 1.3.3 the last lot or piece (if you ordered a good that consists of multiple lots or pieces); or 1.3.4 the first good (if you ordered goods to be delivered regularly over a set period of time).] 1.4 If you want to cancel this contract, you must let us know. You

Cancellation form To [insert your name, geographical address, telephone number, fax number and email address]: I/we