Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 OCTOBER 2013

Revised Canadian Immunity And Leniency Program FAQs – Highlights

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Explore more from Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP

On September 25, 2013, the Competition Bureau released its revised "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) in relation to its Immunity and Leniency Programs, which create incentives for firms and individuals to report unlawful conduct and cooperate with the bureau in its criminal investigations.

CanadaAntitrust/Competition Law
Eric Lefebvre
Eric Lefebvre
Author LinkedIn connections

On September 25, 2013, the Competition Bureau released its revised "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) in relation to its Immunity and Leniency Programs, which create incentives for firms and individuals to report unlawful conduct and cooperate with the bureau in its criminal investigations.

The updated FAQs are intended to increase transparency and predictability in the bureau's Immunity and Leniency Programs and reflect the manner in which these programs are currently managed by the bureau. The key revisions are as follows:

Markers

To benefit from the Immunity and Leniency Programs, an applicant is first granted a "marker" that records the date and time the applicant approached the bureau to report anti-competitive activities. The updated FAQs provide that:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Competition Bureau Reaches Consent Agreement With Empire Company Limited Regarding Grocery Property Controls

The Competition Bureau of Canada has entered into a consent agreement with Empire Company Limited, parent of major grocery chains including Sobeys and Safeway, restricting the company's use of property controls that limit competition. This agreement prohibits Empire from enforcing certain restrictive covenants and exclusivity clauses that prevent other grocers from operating nearby, despite Empire's earlier voluntary commitments. The Bureau's action signals heightened regulatory scrutiny of property control
CanadaAntitrust/Competition Law
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Article

Cassels On Competition: October 2026

More particularly, the Plaintiff had argued that the drip pricing provision in subsection 52(1.3) of the Competition Act requires “all-inclusive pricing” and forbids all forms of “fragmented or segmented pricing,” and that Ticketmaster’s partitioned price representations are thus prohibited as a criminal conduct and amount to false or misleading representations covered by the criminal misleading advertising provision in section 52
CanadaAntitrust/Competition Law
Cassels
Cassels
Article

Pre-Merger Notification Guide: Canada’s Competition Act

This comprehensive guide examines the pre-merger notification requirements under Canada's Competition Act, providing essential information for parties considering transactions that may trigger mandatory filing obligations. The guide outlines the thresholds, procedures, and compliance considerations that businesses must navigate when planning mergers and acquisitions in the Canadian market.
CanadaAntitrust/Competition Law
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
Article

Kalibrate Consent Agreement Targets Third-Party Information Sharing As Abuse Of Dominance

On September 24, 2026, the Competition Bureau (Bureau) announced it had entered into a consent agreement with Kalibrate Canada Inc. (Kalibrate) to address concerns regarding Kalibrate’s collection and distribution of detailed retail fuel data through its Kalibrate Market Intelligence product (KMI). More broadly, the matter signals the Bureau’s willingness to challenge information-sharing arrangements under multiple provisions of the Competition Act (Act), including through abuse of dominance where the intermediary itself is alleged to be dominant.
CanadaAntitrust/Competition Law
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP