Hyperlawhypertext legal database Competition Act

← Historical versions

Versions of s. 45(3)

C-34 — Competition Act · 4 versions · View current text

Historical text comes from the Justice Laws point-in-time corpus and is unofficial — not the official version.

  1. 2023-06-23 to present available View Source
    In a prosecution under subsection (1),(1) or (1.1), the court may infer the existence of a conspiracy, agreement or arrangement from circumstantial evidence, with or without direct evidence of communication between or among the alleged parties to it, but, for greater certainty, the conspiracy, agreement or arrangement must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Full text

    In a prosecution under subsection (1) or (1.1), the court may infer the existence of a conspiracy, agreement or arrangement from circumstantial evidence, with or without direct evidence of communication between or among the alleged parties to it, but, for greater certainty, the conspiracy, agreement or arrangement must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

  2. 2018-05-01 to 2023-06-23 View Source
    In a prosecution under subsection (1), the court may infer the existence of a conspiracy, agreement or arrangement from circumstantial evidence, with or without direct evidence of communication between or among the alleged parties to it, but, for greater certainty, the conspiracy, agreement or arrangement must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Full text

    In a prosecution under subsection (1), the court may infer the existence of a conspiracy, agreement or arrangement from circumstantial evidence, with or without direct evidence of communication between or among the alleged parties to it, but, for greater certainty, the conspiracy, agreement or arrangement must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

  3. 2010-03-12 to 2018-05-01 View Source
    Subject to subsection (4), inIn a prosecution under subsection (1), the court shallmay not convictinfer the accusedexistence ifof thea conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement relatesfrom onlycircumstantial evidence, with or without direct evidence of communication between or among the alleged parties to oneit, but, for greater certainty, the conspiracy, agreement or morearrangement ofmust thebe following:proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Full text

    In a prosecution under subsection (1), the court may infer the existence of a conspiracy, agreement or arrangement from circumstantial evidence, with or without direct evidence of communication between or among the alleged parties to it, but, for greater certainty, the conspiracy, agreement or arrangement must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

  4. 2002-12-31 to 2010-03-12 View Source

    Subject to subsection (4), in a prosecution under subsection (1), the court shall not convict the accused if the conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement relates only to one or more of the following: