Karounga Diawara

Université de Laval
Professor

Karounga Diawara is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law at Laval University (Quebec City, Quebec, Canada) and co-director of the Centre of Economic Law Studies (CEDE). He holds a Doctor of Laws (LL.D.) (PhD) from Laval University, a postgraduate diploma (DEA) in European law (Institute for European Legal Studies (IEJE), University of Liege in Belgium) a Masters in Law, option Business Law (Gaston Berger University, Saint-Louis, Senegal). Professor Diawara Karounga focuses its research in the field of law and economic regulation, competition law and particularly the question of protection of consumer’s interest by antitrust law; comparative and international antitrust law ; the link between antitrust and consumer law ; business and transnational law. He is a member of HEI (Quebec Institute of International Studies), the CEPCI (Centre for multidisciplinary studies in international trade and investment) and GREDICC (UQAM).

Articles

8507 Bulletin

Karounga Diawara The Canadian Competition Authority releases the final version of its Competitor Collaboration Guidelines instituting a new dual-track approach for conspiracy and agreement between competitors

1121

On December 23, 2009 the Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) released the final version of its Competitor Collaboration Guidelines (“Guidelines”) that outlines the Bureau’s approach to enforce the new agreement provisions resulting from the fundamental changes induced by Bill C-10. Bill C-10 overhauls (...)

Karounga Diawara The Canadian Competition Authority releases an update of its draft enforcement abuse of dominance guidelines (Draft Enforcement Abuse of Dominance Guidelines)

1780

On 16 January 2009 the Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) released its Draft Enforcement Abuse of Dominance Guidelines (“Draft Guidelines”) that outline the Bureau’s approach to enforcing the abuse of dominance provisions under the Competition Act (“the Act”) (sections 78 and 79) in light of Canadian (...)

Karounga Diawara The Canadian Federal Court of Appeal rules that the Competition Authority made an error in law in applying paragraphs 79(1)(b) and 79(1)(c) of the Competition Act and defines, for the first time, the meaning and framework of abuse of dominance provisions (Canada Pipe)

2970

Facts Canada Pipe Company Co., acting through its division Bibby Ste-Croix, offered distributors a loyalty rebate program so called the “stocking distributor program” (SDP) under which Canada Pipe gave significant rebates and discounts to distributors that purchase all of their requirements for (...)

2876 Review

Karounga Diawara Canada : The Competition tribunal confirms and strengthens the analytical framework of interpretation and application of the provision on abuse of dominant position in a review (The Commissioner of Competition / The Toronto Real Estate Board)

133

On April 27, 2016, the Competition Tribunal ("Tribunal") issued the long-awaited reconsideration judgment in the judicial saga between the Canadian competition authority, the Commissioner, and the professional real estate association of the Greater Toronto Area, better known by its French (...)

Karounga Diawara Canada : The Competition Tribunal specifies the conditions for the authorization of a private remedy based on a restrictive trade practice (Audatex Canada, ULC / CarProof)

108

The judgment handed down by the Competition Tribunal ("Tribunal") at the very beginning of 2016, i.e. on 4 January, provides interesting indications on the burden, the burden and the extent of the proof to be assumed by a private person, allegedly victim of a restrictive trade practice (refusal (...)

Karounga Diawara 355.Exploitative abuse: The Canada Federal Court of Appeal overturns the Competition Tribunal’s narrow interpretation of abuse of dominant position provisions (Toronto Real Estate Board)

182

CAF, February 3, 2014, Canada-Commissioner of Competition v/ The Toronto Real Estate Board, 2014 FCA 29 On February 3, 2014, the Federal Court of Appeal (hereinafter "FCA") of Canada rendered an important decision dealing with the interpretation of the abuse of dominance provision (sections 79 (...)

Karounga Diawara Cartel - Class action : The Canada Supreme Court confirms that indirect purchasers have standing to sue in class action (Infineon Technologies / Option consommateurs)

135

On October 31, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada issued three long-awaited landmark decisions that set the legal framework for class actions brought by indirect victims of anti-competitive practices. The trilogy, Infineon Technologies AG v. Option consommateurs, 2013 SCC 59; Pro-Sys Consultants (...)

Karounga Diawara Canada - Class action: The Superior Court of Québec rules that class action applicants can obtain access to the totality of the communications intercepted during the public inquiry (Ultramar ltée)

140

The so-called "gasoline or octane cartel" case continues to deliver its multiple contours. While the public process is taking its course with its significant number of indictments and guilty pleas, motorists, direct victims of this illegal agreement, have taken over from the public authorities (...)

Karounga Diawara Canada: The Federal Court of Appeal rules that the analysis required for the review of a merger under section 92 of the Competition Act involving the prevention of competition is necessarily forward-looking (Tervita)

116

The treatment of waste resulting from oil and gas extraction from the oil sands in Western Canada clearly presents major environmental challenges. However, this particular industry can be the source of difficulties or lack of emulation, particularly due to the existence of high barriers to (...)

Karounga Diawara Canada: The British Columbia Court of Appeal refuses to rule on a class action of indirect purchasers (Sun-Rype Products/Archer Daniels Midland ; Pro Sys Consultants/Microsoft Corporation )

114

In these two judgments, rendered on the same day before the Quebec Court of Appeal decision we have just reviewed, the British Columbia Court of Appeal relied on the non-existence in Canadian law of the passing-on theory (British Columbia v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd. [2004] 2 S.C.R. 74, (...)

Send a message