General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. City National Leasing Ltd., 
1 S.C.R. 641,  S.C.J. No. 28, at p. 682 S.C.R.:
[C]ompetition is not a single matter, any more than inflation or pollution.
The provinces too, may deal with competition in the exercise of their legisla-
tive powers in such fields as consumer protection, labour relations, marketing
and the like. The point is, however, that Parliament also has the constitu-
tional power to regulate intraprovincial aspects of competition.
 Here, there is no conflict between valid provincial legislation and the federal Competition Act, as the federal legislation
accords leeway to provinces to implement legislation to advance
their public interest, without running afoul of s. 45 of the
Competition Act. That, in essence, is the regulated conduct defence.
Whether the provincial legislation is retroactive or not is beside
the point in a non-criminal context.
 I agree with the motion judge’s conclusion that s. 10(3) is
constitutionally valid legislation, enacted within the matters allocated to a province by s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
(5) Leave to appeal costs
 The motion judge awarded costs to the then defendants
Brewers Retail Inc.: $724,250
 These amounts represented a substantial discount from
the actual costs incurred and from the partial indemnity costs
 The Law Foundation of Ontario and the appellants seek
leave to appeal and allege that the motion judge made many
errors in his assessment of costs. They submit that he failed to
consider the impact upon access to justice of a cost order of this
magnitude. Further, they submit that under an analysis of
s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6, the
motion judge erred in his assessment of the complexity of the
case, the extent to which the case raised a matter of public interest, the degree of novelty of the issues raised and erred in his
assessment of what amount constituted a fair and reasonable