Competition Law In Canada

Competition law
The definition of anti-competitive behaviour which is stated by the OECD is the business practices that an organization choose to restrict inter-organization competition to maintain or increase their market position without providing goods and services at a lower price or of higher standard such that these practices occur in the form of cartels, collusions, conspiracies, mergers, predatory pricing, price discrimination, and price fixing. Therefore, these practices also occur in supplier–distributor relationships. For instance- agreements for exclusive dealing, geographic market restrictions, refusals to deal, resale price maintenance, and tied selling. Anti-competitive agreements made in one country can impose an impact on other

The Competition Act (RSC 1985, c. C-34) accommodates both criminal and civil offences and is directed and implemented by the Competition Bureau of Canada. Some conducts are taken seriously to justify criminal sanctions and they include imprisonment or fines up to $25,000,000. The criminal provisions of the Act apply to cartels, conspiracy to fix prices, allocating customers or markets, controlling production or supply of product, bid rigging, and deceptive marketing practices such as misleading advertising, promotional contests, pyramid selling, and bait and switch selling.
Section 46 Competition Act- it is an offence for an organization operating in Canada to implement a conspiracy directed by people outside Canada. The offence does not allow people or organization to participate in conspiracy whether intentionally or non-intentionally such that conspiracy is a criminal offence and that Canadian criminal law levy jurisdiction over a person only by serving the person within the territory of the court. Here is presenting a case as an example of Canadian affiliate which was fined for implementing conspiracy and thus violating s 46 Competition

As a result, The Canadian judicial fined them $370,000. This decision taken by the court was appropriate and give lesson to other companies also for future references.
Analysis- It has been analysed that no proceedings or actions was taken against the original company as the affiliated company was outside Canada and Canada jurisdiction can only take companies who are in Canada only and can charge them for their wrongdoing. The United States and the EU, both assert “extraterritorial” jurisdiction.
This case exhibits that competition law should be applicable to all the countries such that the competition regulations are not violated and the companies who involves them in wrongdoings just to protect their position must be aware of the law. This case also gave lesson to other companies that when they sign any agreement the law should be kept in mind. Otherwise, they will be heavily fined by the jurisdiction. However, Canada has now international cooperation agreements with the competition authorities in many other countries, including the United States, the EU, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Chile, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and New Zealand. It has been analysed that more than 100 countries have adopted the competition law and some are in the process of adopting the law. Moreover, china also adopted the competition in the year