Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Abuse of Dominance under the 1986 Canadian Competition Act

  • Published:
Review of Industrial Organization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Areeda, P. (1990) ‘Essential Facilities: An Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles’, Antitrust Law Journal, 58, 841-853.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Baker, J. B. 1996. ‘Vertical Restraints with Horizontal Consequences: Competitive Effects of ‘Most-Favored-Customer Clauses’, Antitrust Law Journal, 64, 517-534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baziliauskas, A. and B. Rivard (1996) ‘Impeding Toe-Hold Entry Through Exclusive Contracts’, Mimeo, Competition Bureau, Industry Canada.

  • Carlton, D. W. and A. S. Frankel (1995a) ‘The Antitrust Economics of Credit Card Networks’, Antitrust Law Journal, 63, 643-668.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cochlan, M. (1995) ‘Branded Ingredient Strategies’, Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Calgary.

  • 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 

  • Cooper, T. E. (1986) ‘Most-Favored-Customer Pricing and Tacit Collusion’, Rand Journal of Economics, 17, 377-388.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Graham, B. M. (1993) ‘Abuse of Dominance-Recent Case Law: NutraSweet and Laidlaw’, McGill Law Journal, 38, 800-829.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, C. (1990) Canadian Industrial Organization, Third Edition. Toronto: McGraw-Hill-Ryerson.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Martin, R. L. and B. Martin (1987) ‘Abuse of Dominance or Abuse of Reason’, Canadian Competition Policy Record, 8, 61-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathewson, G. F. and R. Winter (1987) ‘The Competitive Effects of Vertical Agreements: Comment’, American Economic Review, 77, 1057-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathewson, G. F. and R. Winter (1996) ‘Tying as a Response to Demand Uncertainty’, Mimeo, University of Toronto.

  • 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 

  • McDonald, B. C. (1987) ‘Abuse of Dominant Position’, Canadian Competition Policy Record, 8, 59-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musgrove, J. (1995) ‘Use and Abuse of Dominance: A Brief Review after NutraSweet, Laidlaw, and Nielsen’, Canadian Competition Record, Autumn, 52-63.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Quinn, J. J. and G. F. Leslie (1996) Essential Facilities and the Duty to Facilitate Competition, Mimeo Blake, Cassels & Graydon Toronto.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Roberts, R. J. (1992) Roberts on Competition/Antitrust: Canada and the United States, Second Edition. Toronto: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Salinger, M. (1988) ‘Vertical Mergers and Market Foreclosure’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103, 445-456.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schwartz, M. (1989) ‘Investments in Oligopoly: Welfare Effects and Tests for Predation’, Oxford Economic Papers, 41, 698-719.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Stocking, G. and W. Mueller (1955) ‘The Cellophane Case and the New Competition’, American Economic Review, 45, 29-63.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Thompson, D. N. (1991b) ‘NutraSweet: The Evolution of Law on Abuse of Dominant Position’, Canadian Business Law Journal, 18, 17-42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirole, J. (1988) The Theory of Industrial Organization. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, D. (1956) ‘Antitrust Policy and the Cellophane Case’, Harvard Law Review, 70, 281-318.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    Jeffrey Church

  2. Department of Economics, Queen's University, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada

    Roger Ware

Authors
  1. Jeffrey Church
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roger Ware
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Church, J., Ware, R. Abuse of Dominance under the 1986 Canadian Competition Act. Review of Industrial Organization 13, 85–129 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007735104134

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007735104134

Keywords

Search

Navigation