I should just clarify that the administrative monetary penalties were just introduced approximately a month and a half ago, so there are no cases in that short period of time in which the administrative monetary penalties were issued. But certainly there are examples of remedies having been granted under the abuse of dominance provisions as they existed prior to the amendment of that act. If my numbers are correct, there have been six abuse cases that have been brought since 1986, and in five of those cases, a remedy was issued through successful litigation before the Competition Tribunal.
I can perhaps provide a more detailed explanation of each of those examples. Again, they would be in guidelines I could make available to the committee. They provide a short synopsis of each of those decisions.
The most recent example was a case involving Canada Pipe Company Limited, a company that was found by the tribunal to hold a dominant position in respect of the market for cast iron pipes, couplings, and fittings. It offered to its distributors what's called a stocking distributor program that provided a system of rebates based on purchasing all three types of these products exclusively from Canada Pipe. The bureau argued that the program acted as a barrier to entry by foreclosing potential competitors and impairing their ability to enter the market or to continue to compete in the market, with the result that competition was substantially lessened. The tribunal disagreed with the bureau on that issue and declined to grant a remedy.
It was then taken to the Federal Court of Appeal by the bureau, and the court ruled that the tribunal had made an error in law in applying the abuse provisions. The matter was ultimately settled by a registered consent agreement between the bureau and Canada Pipe.
That's the most recent case under the abuse of dominance provisions, but there are others that are summarized in the guidelines, which I'd be happy to supply.