Case information

Criminal law — Procedure — Trial — Motion — Non suit — Reopening of hearing — Admissions — Whether Court of Appeal erred in imposing on defence counsel obligations related to admissions that were contrary to counsel’s role in our adversarial system — Whether Court of Appeal erred in refusing to conclude that trial judge had breached his duty to preserve integrity of proceedings and right to fair trial — Section 655 of Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The Competition Bureau launched an investigation, which included wiretapping, in the Sherbrooke and Magog areas, where gasoline price increases were being coordinated by various gas station chains to the detriment of consumers. The Couche Tard convenience store company set up a price centre that was used by everyone to coordinate the increases. Two co-accused, charged jointly with the applicant, pleaded guilty to contravening s. 45(1)(c) of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 34. At the start of the trial, the parties filed formal admissions under s. 655 Cr.C. The Crown’s evidence concerned 64 service stations identified as the Sherbrooke and Magog markets. The applicant, an Irving Oil representative, was connected with the Sherbrooke market, where he supervised the Accommodation Domon gas station. At trial, a map and a list of the service stations involved, with their locations, were filed, reflecting what had been found during the investigation, particularly in the Sherbrooke market. The co-accused, including the applicant, then filed motions for non suit, arguing that the Magog and Sherbrooke markets had not been defined, that the market shares of the accused had not been proved and that the prosecutor had not proved whether or not the gas stations in question were part of those markets and whether or not they were able to unduly influence competition in those markets. In response, the Crown sought and obtained leave to reopen its case so that it could call an expert, who established the markets in question and the undue influence on competition. It argued that, if it was admitted that a conspiracy had unduly lessened competition in the Magog or Sherbrook market, as it was by the accused, then the existence of those markets, the market structure and the conduct of the parties to the conspiracy were necessarily admitted. Finally, the applicant testified in his defence.