Commissioner of Competition v. Toronto Real Estate Board (2011-2018) — full 7-year timeline; SCC denied TREB's final leave Aug 23 2018
Summary
Claim. Full timeline of Commissioner of Competition v. Toronto Real Estate Board: Bureau application May 2011 → Tribunal dismissed (2013 Comp Trib) → FCA reversed (2014 FCA 29), narrow s.79 reading rejected → SCC denied TREB leave (2014-07-24, case 35799) → Tribunal redetermination for the Commissioner (2016 Comp Trib 7, April 28 2016) → FCA dismissed TREB's appeal (2017 FCA 236, Dec 2017) → SCC dismissed TREB's leave application Aug 23 2018 (case 37932). Seven-year saga ends.
Source. canada.ca Competition Bureau timeline + court citations 2014 FCA 29 / 2016 Comp Trib 7 / 2017 FCA 236 / SCC case 37932, accessed 2026-06-21.
Confidence. Verified.
Caveats. Tribunal order took effect ~60 days post-SCC denial.
Implication / use. Anchor timeline. Any "post-2018" framing of the Ontario MLS landscape starts here.
Related entries
Referenced by (6)
- research-notes Research notes (capture-layer): inside the MLS box — what an Ontario member agent's account exposes, what goes unused, and what they're licensed to do with it (June 2026) relates-to
- reference HouseSigma — "first in Canada to make sold prices publicly available"; inflection point came shortly after the 2018 SCC-final outcome opening sold data on VOWs relates-to
- reference TREB VOW restrictions held to be abuse of dominance under Competition Act s.79 (2016 Tribunal redetermination); order requires TREB to stop restricting members' access/use of historical+sale-price data on VOWs relates-to
- reference TREB case dealt with VOW (password-protected) publication — did NOT mandate fully public, non-password-protected publication relates-to
- reference FCA 2017 (2017 FCA 236) — in *obiter*, endorsed Tribunal's conclusion that the TREB MLS compilation lacked the originality (skill/judgment/labour) for copyright; TREB "had not put forward persuasive evidence" relates-to
- reference TREB's PIPEDA-based privacy/business-justification defence failed on the facts — wide use, inconsistent enforcement, no CPO/CIO evidence; principle remains theoretically open relates-to