R. v. Mr. Gas Limited
On the agreed statement of facts there was not sufficient evidence to permit the trial judge to draw the inference of a 'threat' as defined in the authorities; accordingly the conviction on Count 6 must be set aside and an acquittal entered.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C23982
- Parties
- Appellant: MR. GAS LIMITED; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 7 October 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal (competition Act Offence) / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; acquittal entered.
- Legal Topics
- Threat, Section 61(1)(a), Sufficiency of Evidence, Agreed Statement of Facts
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
MR. GAS LIMITED
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (competition Act Offence) / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was evidence to support a finding of a threat within the meaning of s.61(1)(a) of the Competition Act
Ratio Decidendi
On the agreed statement of facts there was not sufficient evidence to permit the trial judge to draw the inference of a 'threat' as defined in the authorities; accordingly the conviction on Count 6 must be set aside and an acquittal entered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; acquittal entered.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Conviction on Count 6 set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Mr. Gas Limited Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-10-07 Docket numbers C23982 Judges Brooke, John Watson; Rosenberg, Marc; Feldman, Kathryn N. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 19991007 DOCKET: C23982 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. MR. GAS LIMITED (Appellant) BEFORE: BROOKE, ROSENBERG and FELDMAN JJ.A. COUNSEL: Frank Addario, for the appellant Gene Assad, for the respondent HEARD: October 1, 1999 On appeal from conviction by His Honour Judge David Dempsey on August 11, 1995 and from the sentence imposed on January 26, 1996 ENDORSEMENT [1] The narrow issue in this case was whether there was evidence to support a finding on Count 6 that there had been a threat within the meaning of s. 61(1)(a) of the Competition Act. [2] The parties proceeded by way of an agreed statement of facts. Judging the issue on the basis of that agreed statement of facts, we think that there was not sufficient evidence to permit the trial judge to draw the inference of a threat as that term has been defined in the authorities. [3] Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed, the conviction set aside, and an acquittal entered.