I believe that our section's position and that of the Canadian Bar Association are in fact a combination. I must note the somewhat technical aspect of the act. Honestly, the caps are also regulated. The new caps in question here applied to cases of abuse of dominant position and misleading advertising. In our opinion, there could be debate if such calculations were to be based on revenues for misleading advertising. We're not certain that there would be equivalencies in other countries in relation to misleading advertising.
There are checks and balances, if you will, because the judge or tribunal has tests to consider, such as the duration of the practice, the repercussions, the actual objective. An investigation will certainly help limit the caps.
The problem, here, is the combination of new thresholds and private remedies related to abuse of dominant position. Without reiterating what has been said and done, this raises important questions. We've never seen this in Canada. These businesses could complain, possibly with reason, and we aren't questioning that. However, the administrative monetary penalty that could be imposed doesn't go into the pockets of the company complaining; it goes to the Receiver General for Canada. It's a system that we don't understand. It's new and it's never been seen in Canada. What will happen if this type of situation comes up? What type of incentive will it provide for potentially strategic litigation?
The combination of civil remedy and new caps is what concerns us. That needs to be examined more closely.