Page 25 - CCCA64_2012

CCCA_V6No4_CoverStory-FIN_CCCA 11/26/12 1:13 PM Page 25 “ Cover Certainly, in markets. It also went after the Melanie’s tenure, the tion group in Toronto. “In a landscape in which Canadian Real Estate Association enforcement, traditionally, had been not quite as (CREA) and theToronto Real Estate bureau was unafraid high profile, that made a tremendous difference Board (TREB) for allegations of to take on cases, to the business community because, clearly, abuse of dominance. (The CREA especially those that there was a signal being sent that the bureau was case later settled and the TREB case had high visibility or prepared to litigate in certain cases in which a is ongoing.) consumer impact. consensual solution could not be reached.” There is an ongoing challenge But Bhattacharjee points to another element relating to price maintenance against Subrata Bhattacharjee, of this approach that has made many companies Visa Canada Corp. and MasterCard Heenan Blaikie stand on guard: “Businesses had to be aware of Corp. for “restrictive and anti-com- the media fallout of some of the cases the bureau petitive rules that Visa and ” chose to bring, and that is largely because under MasterCard impose on merchants this commissioner, the bureau was very effective who accept their credit cards” and just prior to Aitken’s depar- in using the media to publicize its enforcement priorities. And so, ture, the bureau sued Canada’s Big Three telecommunications increasingly, you saw these disputes being waged not just in the firms — Bell Canada Inc., Rogers Communications Inc. and Competition Tribunal, but also in the newspapers. So, from a cor- Telus Corp. — for allegedly misleading consumers about the cost porate perspective, it has raised the reputational risk of prolonged of premium texting services. (This was in addition to a settlement that Christopher Putney Bell had reached with the bureau in Senior legal counsel June 2011 in which it was required Insurance Corporation of to pay the maximum administrative British Columbia monetary penalty of $10-million for Vancouver misleading representations about the prices offered for its services.) Considering many of the house- hold names involved, it’s not surpris- ing that the Bureau gained a signifi- cant, and in many ways unprecedent- ed, public profile. Says Christopher Putney, senior legal counsel with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) in Vancouver: “By picking certain things such as real estate services or cellular phone advertising, [Aitken] was quite astute at choosing issues that resonated with Canadians and raised the profile of the bureau among Canadians, so people could see the work the bureau does in a real sense.” In turn, that has had a significant impact on businesses. “Certainly, in ROBERT KARPA, VENTURI+KARPA unafraid to take on cases, especially Melanie’s tenure, the bureau was those that had high visibility or consumer impact,” says Subrata Bhattacharjee, co-chair of Heenan Blaikie’s national trade and competi- HIVER 2012 CCCA Canadian Corporate Counsel Association 25