Advertisement

Review of Industrial Organization

, Volume 13, Issue 1–2, pp 85–129 | Cite as

Abuse of Dominance under the 1986 Canadian Competition Act

  • Jeffrey Church
  • Roger Ware
Article

Keywords

Industrial Organization Canadian Competition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, R. D. and S. D. Kholsa (1987) ‘Reflections on McDonald on Abuse of Dominant Position’, Canadian Competition Policy Record, 8, 51-60.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. D., S. D. Kholsa, and J. Monteiro (1996) ‘Market Definition in Abuse of Dominant Position Cases under the Canadian Competition Act’, Mimeo Competition Bureau, Industry Canada.Google Scholar
  3. Areeda, P. (1990) ‘Essential Facilities: An Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles’, Antitrust Law Journal, 58, 841-853.Google Scholar
  4. Areeda, P. E. and D. L. Turner (1975) ‘Predatory Pricing and Related Practices Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act’, Harvard Law Review, 88, 697-733.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, J. B. 1996. ‘Vertical Restraints with Horizontal Consequences: Competitive Effects of ‘Most-Favored-Customer Clauses’, Antitrust Law Journal, 64, 517-534.Google Scholar
  6. Baziliauskas, A. and B. Rivard (1996) ‘Impeding Toe-Hold Entry Through Exclusive Contracts’, Mimeo, Competition Bureau, Industry Canada.Google Scholar
  7. Carlton, D. W. and A. S. Frankel (1995a) ‘The Antitrust Economics of Credit Card Networks’, Antitrust Law Journal, 63, 643-668.Google Scholar
  8. Carlton, D. W. and A. S. Frankel (1995b) ‘The Antitrust Economics of Credit Card Networks: Reply to Evans and Schmalensee Comment’, Antitrust Law Journal, 63, 903-916.Google Scholar
  9. Cochlan, M. (1995) ‘Branded Ingredient Strategies’, Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, P. J. (1991) ‘The Law and Economics of “Abuse of Dominant Position”: An Analysis of NutraSweet’, University of Toronto Faculty Law Review, 49, 276-293.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, T. E. (1986) ‘Most-Favored-Customer Pricing and Tacit Collusion’, Rand Journal of Economics, 17, 377-388.Google Scholar
  12. Crocker, K. J. and T. P. Lyon (1994) ‘What Do “Facilitating Practices” Facilitate? An Empirical Investigation of Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses in Natural Gas Contracts’, Journal of Law and Economics, XXXVII, 297-322.Google Scholar
  13. Evans, D. S. and R. Schmalensee (1995) ‘Economic Aspects of Payment Card Systems and Antitrust Policy Toward Joint Ventures’, Antitrust Law Journal, 63, 861-902.Google Scholar
  14. Graham, B. M. (1993) ‘Abuse of Dominance-Recent Case Law: NutraSweet and Laidlaw’, McGill Law Journal, 38, 800-829.Google Scholar
  15. Green, C. (1990) Canadian Industrial Organization, Third Edition. Toronto: McGraw-Hill-Ryerson.Google Scholar
  16. Hay, G. A. (1994) ‘Practices That Facilitate Cooperation: The Ethyl Case (1984)’, in J. E. Kwoka, Jr. and L. J. White, eds, The Antitrust Revolution: The Role of Economics, Second Edition. New York: Harper Collins, pp. 189-213.Google Scholar
  17. Klein, B., R. A. Crawford, and A. A. Alchian (1978) ‘Vertical Integration, Appropriable Rents, and the Competitive Contracting Process’, Journal of Law and Economics, 21, 297-326.Google Scholar
  18. Martin, R. L. and B. Martin (1987) ‘Abuse of Dominance or Abuse of Reason’, Canadian Competition Policy Record, 8, 61-67.Google Scholar
  19. Mathewson, G. F. and R. Winter (1987) ‘The Competitive Effects of Vertical Agreements: Comment’, American Economic Review, 77, 1057-62.Google Scholar
  20. Mathewson, G. F. and R. Winter (1996) ‘Tying as a Response to Demand Uncertainty’, Mimeo, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  21. Maule, C. and T. Ross (1989) ‘Canada’s New Competition Policy’, The George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics, 23, 59-109.Google Scholar
  22. McDonald, B. C. (1987) ‘Abuse of Dominant Position’, Canadian Competition Policy Record, 8, 59-67.Google Scholar
  23. Musgrove, J. (1995) ‘Use and Abuse of Dominance: A Brief Review after NutraSweet, Laidlaw, and Nielsen’, Canadian Competition Record, Autumn, 52-63.Google Scholar
  24. Ordover, J. A. and G. Saloner (1989) ‘Predation, Monopolization, and Antitrust’, in R. Schmalensee and R. Willig, eds, Handbook of Industrial Organization. New York: North Holland, pp. 537-596.Google Scholar
  25. Ordover, J. A. and R. D. Willig (1981) ‘An Economic Definition of Predation: Pricing and Product Innovation’, Yale Law Journal, 91, 8-53.Google Scholar
  26. Perry, M. (1989) ‘Vertical Integration: Determinants and Effects’, in R. Schmalensee and R. Willig, eds, Handbook of Industrial Organization. New York: North Holland, pp. 183-255.Google Scholar
  27. Quinn, J. J. and G. F. Leslie (1996) Essential Facilities and the Duty to Facilitate Competition, Mimeo Blake, Cassels & Graydon Toronto.Google Scholar
  28. Reschenthaler, G. B. and W. T. Stanbury (1977) ‘Benign Monopoly: Canadian Merger Policy and the K.C. Irving Case’, Canadian Business Law Journal, 2, 135-168.Google Scholar
  29. Roberts, R. J. (1991) ‘Abuse of Dominant Position: From Bork to Bain and Back Again (But this Time with Extraterritoriality)’, in R. S. Khemani and W. T. Stanbury, eds, Canadian Competition Law and Policy at the Centenary. Halifax: Institute for Research on Public Policy, pp. 337-348.Google Scholar
  30. Roberts, R. J. (1992) Roberts on Competition/Antitrust: Canada and the United States, Second Edition. Toronto: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  31. Rosenbluth, G. (1979) ‘Monopoly and Monopolization’, in J. R. Prichard, W. T. Stanbury and T. A. Wilson, eds, Canadian Competition Policy. Toronto: Butterworths, pp. 329-344.Google Scholar
  32. Salinger, M. (1988) ‘Vertical Mergers and Market Foreclosure’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103, 445-456.Google Scholar
  33. Salop, S. (1986) ‘Practices that (Credibly) Facilitate Oligopoly Coordination’, in J. Stiglitz and F. G. Mathewson, eds, New Developments in the Analysis of Market Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Schwartz, M. (1989) ‘Investments in Oligopoly: Welfare Effects and Tests for Predation’, Oxford Economic Papers, 41, 698-719.Google Scholar
  35. Stanbury, W. T. (1978) ‘Monopoly, Monopolization and Joint Monopolization: Policy Development and Bill C-13’, in J. W. Rowley and W. T. Stanbury, eds, Competition Policy in Canada: Stage II, Bill C-13. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy, pp. 133-176.Google Scholar
  36. Stanbury, W. T. (1985) ‘Half a Loaf: Bill C-29, Proposed Amendments to the Combines Investigation Act’, Canadian Business Law Journal, 10, 1-34.Google Scholar
  37. Stanbury, W. T. (1986–87) ‘The New Competition Act and Competition Tribunal Act: “Not With a Bang, But a Whimper”’, Canadian Business Law Journal, 12, 2-42.Google Scholar
  38. Stanbury, W. T. and G. B. Reschenthaler (1977) ‘Oligopoly and Conscious Parallelism: Theory, Policy and the Canadian Cases’, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 15, 617-700.Google Scholar
  39. Stocking, G. and W. Mueller (1955) ‘The Cellophane Case and the New Competition’, American Economic Review, 45, 29-63.Google Scholar
  40. Thompson, D. N. (1986) ‘The “Abuse of Dominant Position” Provisions’, in W. Block, ed, Reaction: The New Combines Investigation Act. Vancouver: Fraser Institute, pp. 157-169.Google Scholar
  41. Thompson, D. N. (1991a) ‘Monopolization and Abuse of Dominant Position: The Unanswered Questions’, in R. S. Khemani and W. T. Stanbury, eds, Canadian Competition Law and Policy at the Centenary. Halifax: Institute for Research on Public Policy, pp. 315-336.Google Scholar
  42. Thompson, D. N. (1991b) ‘NutraSweet: The Evolution of Law on Abuse of Dominant Position’, Canadian Business Law Journal, 18, 17-42.Google Scholar
  43. Tirole, J. (1988) The Theory of Industrial Organization. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Turner, D. (1956) ‘Antitrust Policy and the Cellophane Case’, Harvard Law Review, 70, 281-318.Google Scholar
  45. Williams, P. L. (1994) ‘The Exercise of Market Power: Its Treatment under the Australian and New Zealand Statutes’, Review of Industrial Organization, 9, 607-626.Google Scholar
  46. Williamson, O. E. (1989) ‘Transaction Cost Economics’, in R. Schmalensee and R. D. Willig, eds, Handbook of Industrial Organization. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 135-182.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey Church
    • 1
  • Roger Ware
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsThe University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Department of Economics, Queen's UniversityQueen's UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations