I can speak to an extensive abuse of dominance investigation that we did into certain practices that Loblaw had in place with its suppliers. This was a three-year investigation. It was a very, very deep dive into those policies to understand the intent behind them and the effect.
When we're looking at something under the abuse of dominance framework in Canadian competition law, we have to prove three things: that they are dominant, that they're acting with anti-competitive intent, and that their actions cause a substantial lessening or prevention of competition. During the course of that investigation, Loblaw ceased the majority of the problematic practices. Nevertheless, we felt it important to keep investigating to make sure that it had stopped enforcing those policies in all forms and to be able to really understand the behaviour and provide guidance.
We issued quite a lengthy public statement following that investigation to try to explain where the line is in those policies between retailers and suppliers between hard bargaining, which is not prohibited by the Competition Act, and tipping over into being a retailer that is trying to shield itself from competition by other retailers.