Global Competition Law is primarly a practitioner's guide presenting the most salient aspects of the major competition laws country by country, giving an overview of their structure and most charasteristic elements.
Global Competition Law also provides insight into possible future developments in the field.

Global Competition Law

Monopolization was initially a criminal offense in Canada, subject to a criminal standard of proof that was difficult to satisfy. As part of the 1986 amendments to the Competition Act, the prohibition on monopolies was repealed and replaced with a non-criminal offense of abuse of a dominant position. However, since 2009, administrative monetary penalties have been established. …

Context

Monopolization was initially a criminal offense in Canada, subject to a criminal standard of proof that was difficult to satisfy. As part of the 1986 amendments to the Competition Act, the prohibition on monopolies was repealed and replaced with a non-criminal offense of abuse of a dominant position. However, since 2009, administrative monetary penalties have been established.

The amendments to Part VII have redefined the criteria for establishing abuse of a dominant position. It is now sufficient to prove either anticompetitive intent or anticompetitive effect for a practice to be considered abusive.

Although they have declined to provide a fixed rule, the control authorities have held that no prima facie finding of dominance arises where an entity holds a market share below 50 percent (Dir. of Investigation & Research v. Laidlaw Waste Sys. Ltd., 1992, 40 Can. Patent Rep., 3d, 289, Comp. Trib.). In the small number of cases brought under the provision to date, most entities have had a market share of approximately 85% and the Competition Tribunal has had little difficulty establishing the existence of substantial control of the relevant market.

A non-exhaustive list of examples of anticompetitive acts under this heading is set out in Section 78, for example “squeezing,” i.e., buying-up products and withholding facilities or resources from the market; selective temporary use of fighting brands; buying-up products to prevent the erosion of existing price levels; and selling products at a price lower than the acquisition cost for the purpose of disciplining or eliminating a competitor. Since the 2023 amendments, excessive and unfair selling prices qualify as an abuse.

On January 2009, the Competition Bureau published Updated Enforcement Guidelines on the Abuse of Dominance Provisions. Notably, the concept of “excessive and unfair pricing” was introduced, allowing enforcement against dominant firms that impose such pricing practices.

Maximum penalties have been increased to up to CAD 25 million for a first offense, or three times the value of the profit gained from the anticompetitive conduct - or, if that amount cannot be determined, 3% of the company’s annual worldwide sales.

These changes aim to facilitate the enforcement of abuse of dominance provisions and increase the severity of penalties imposed.

Global Competition Law

858. Context

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

858. Context

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise