Bruno Pateras

The accused were convicted at trial of conspiracy to import narcotics and bribery of an officer.

The Court of Appeal allowed their appeals and ordered a stay of proceedings based on the rule against multiple convictions.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial convictions, holding that the principles expressed in R. v. Prince regarding the rule against multiple convictions were conclusive.

The appellants, operators of sugar refineries in eastern Canada, were charged with conspiracy to enhance the price of sugar unreasonably and to lessen competition unduly under the Combines Investigation Act.

The trial judge acquitted them, finding that while there was a tacit agreement to maintain traditional market shares, it was not intended to lessen competition unduly but rather to avoid a price war.

The Court of Appeal reversed the acquittal on the second count.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittals, holding that the trial judge did not err in law in concluding that the Crown failed to prove an agreement to lessen competition unduly.

The Court affirmed that conscious parallelism or a tacit agreement to maintain market shares does not necessarily amount to an undue lessening of competition.