The required registration form requires information about the activities of the parties and their affiliates, including a narrative description of the company and its business activities, annual financial statements, and customer and supplier lists. Strategic documents related to the transaction – including business and marketing plans, board documents and competitive analysis – must also be submitted. This should be taken into account when creating such documents. According to the law, it is a criminal offence to pursue a policy of selling at unreasonably low prices in order to eliminate a competitor. Prices will not be unreasonably low unless they are below cost, but just because they are below cost is not necessarily enough. Prices below cost can be quite legitimate in some circumstances. Whether prices are unreasonably low depends on the degree to which the cost is reduced and the circumstances of the case. But even very low prices are not enough; there must be an unreasonably low price policy. Isolated events with unreasonably low prices do not constitute predatory pricing policy within the meaning of the law. Prices that can be unreasonably low can also be perfectly legitimate if they are designed to withstand competition, retain existing customers, or attract new customers. In his recent predatory pricing guidelines, the Director indicated that he would not initiate predatory pricing proceedings if the predatory trader held less than 35% of the relevant market.

His reasoning is that if a supplier does not have a strong presence in the market, below-cost prices are unlikely to significantly reduce competition or eliminate a competitor. As it is not always easy to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate situations, pricing under cost must always be carefully weighed before being implemented. It does not make sense to examine in detail in a document of this kind how the law deals with these verifiable practices. Before applying such practices, the effects of competition law should be carefully considered. The purpose of the Act is to maintain and promote competition in Canada, and it addresses three categories of conduct: mergers, criminal cases and verifiable practices.1 Prizes awarded are not a criminal offence, but a practice that cannot be criminally verified. It is better to take this into account here, as it is a form of discrimination. If a major supplier delivers to the establishment of certain customers but refuses to supply other customers in the same place on the same commercial terms, such a practice could lead to a court order prohibiting this practice. A related offence makes it illegal to sell in a part of Canada at prices lower than those charged by the supplier elsewhere in Canada where the practice has or results in a substantial reduction in competition or the elimination of a competitor in that part of Canada.

The test used by the Bureau to decide whether to challenge a proposed project is whether the project would significantly prevent or reduce competition or whether it would be likely to prevent or reduce competition. The objective of this test determined by the court is to determine whether the transaction would allow the merged entity to increase its prices profitably in the post-merger competitive environment or whether the merged entity would be able to exercise market power. Canadian competition law is different from that of the United States. Legislation under which recommended retail prices are considered price preservation, unless the supplier also specifies that the buyer is not obliged to resell at the proposed prices and that there would be no sanctions against the buyer if it resold at lower prices. A similar presumption may arise from the seller`s advertising for retail prices, unless it is specified that the product can be purchased for less money. A supplier should always check the legality of recommended retail prices or price advertising. The finding of a substantial prevention or reduction of competition is based on a `but for` test, that is to say, whether prices on the applicable market would be lower `without` the conduct in question. In this context, a number of important predatory pricing issues still need to be resolved in Canada, including reasonable cost, issues generally related to the application and scope of section 79 (according to which there have been only a dozen contentious cases of abuse in twenty-five years), and the scope and importance of paragraph 78(1)(i) of the Act. which contains a stand-alone predator determination that causes a dominant firm to sell items at a price below the initial cost in order to discipline or eliminate a competitor. We have already stated that the refusal of trade as such is not illegal and that it is only in certain circumstances that it leads to problems within the framework of the law. One of these circumstances is the refusal to supply due to the buyer`s low price policy. Refusal to do business is then part of an illegal system of pricing for resale.

Refusal of an agreement may also infringe Article 45 if it results from an agreement which unduly restricts competition. 3 The provisions on price discrimination, predatory pricing and incentive compensation have been repealed. The applicable conduct may continue to be challenged under the more general provision on verifiable practices in relation to abuse of a dominant position. The provision on price discrimination has been transformed into a verifiable practice […].