From what I understand, the Competition Bureau of Canada has had very limited success in pursuing "abuse of dominance" type cases, so it may be reasonable to ask: was this the primary, or basic, impetus behind their involvement in the TREB matter? When one examines the pleadings of the Competition Bureau to the Tribunal, the Commission's claim of potential savings associated with the concept of Virtual Office websites (Vow's) isn't substantiated, beyond the claim, itself! The fact that one broker may charge a lower commission rate than another isn't empirical evidence of any net saving. The notion that TREB could exploit any anti-competitive dominance post-internet, in our Google world, is ludicrous! To suggest a consumer's consent is not required to advertise property sale prices, is to deny their privacy rights! Furthermore, to suggest that one's privacy is honored by virtue of a "password protected" VOW, is not only asinine but proves desperation when anyone can have a password!