R. v. Anthes Business Forms et al.
- Citation
- [1978] 1 SCR 970
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 15 February 1977
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal Under Competition/combines Legislation / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Delivered
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 15 February 1977
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal Under Competition/combines Legislation / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Delivered
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the Court was not persuaded the trial judge misdirected on law; an ambiguous paragraph in the trial reasons was insufficient to demonstrate a reversible error of law and therefore the acquittals must stand.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Acquittals of the respondents affirmed
02
Material facts
Parties
Her Majesty The Queen
Appellant Counsel: R. Heather; R. MurrayAnthes Business Forms Ltd.
RespondentMoore Business Forms Ltd.
Respondent Counsel: J.J. Robinette, Q.C.; G.G.S. TakachR.L. Crane Ltd.
Respondent Counsel: G.F. Henderson, Q.C.; G. ClarkeAutographic Business Forms Ltd.
Respondent Counsel: J.W. Brown, Q.C.; C.S. GoldmanContinuous Forms (Alberta) Ltd.
Respondent Counsel: J.W. Brown, Q.C.; C.S. GoldmanContinuous Forms Ltd.
Respondent Counsel: J.W. Brown, Q.C.; C.S. GoldmanSavoy Business Forms Ltd.
Respondent Counsel: J.W. Brown, Q.C.; C.S. GoldmanSystems Equipment Ltd.
Respondent Counsel: J.W. Brown, Q.C.; C.S. GoldmanWestern Business Forms Ltd.
Respondent Counsel: J.W. Brown, Q.C.; C.S. GoldmanABF Automated Business Forms (Western) Ltd.
Respondent Counsel: B.C. Bynoe, Q.C.Keystone Business Forms Ltd.
Respondent Counsel: John RookAmounts and remedies
- Monetary Penalty: 0
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal Under Competition/combines Legislation / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Delivered
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the association's requirement to disclose past prices constituted a conspiracy to unduly lessen competition under s.32(1)(c) of the Combines Investigation Act
- 02
Whether the trial judge misdirected on a question of law such that this Court had jurisdiction to overturn the acquittals
- 03
Whether the concept of 'undue' is a question of law or fact and whether any lessening of competition was 'undue'
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Crown submitted that the association's requirement to disclose prices of past orders, where those prices differed from members' price lists, amounted to a conspiracy to unduly lessen competition under s.32(1)(c); trial judge erred in law and appeal should be allowed.
- Respondent
- Respondents submitted the agreement applied only to past transactions, did not unduly lessen competition, the trial judge's acquittal was correct and there was no reversible error of law or jurisdictional basis for overturning it.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1952, c.314, s.32(1)(c) and appellate review principles
Whether the meaning of 'undue' is a question of law, and whether a particular lessening of competition is 'undue' is a question of fact
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada authoritative review of trial reasons
Appellate reversal requires a clear misdirection on a question of law or a demonstrable reversible error; ambiguous passages in trial reasons do not establish such error
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the Court was not persuaded the trial judge misdirected on law; an ambiguous paragraph in the trial reasons was insufficient to demonstrate a reversible error of law and therefore the acquittals must stand.
Obiter and limits
- Ambiguity in a single paragraph of trial reasons, when not clearly indicative of legal error, cannot be treated as a basis for appellate reversal
- Distinction reaffirmed between questions of law (meaning of 'undue') and questions of fact (whether competition was unduly lessened)
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
- Appeal dismissed
- Acquittals of the respondents affirmed
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 15 February 1977
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 15 February 1977
R. v. Anthes Business Forms et al. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1977-02-15 Report [1978] 1 SCR 970 Judges Laskin, Bora; Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Spence, Wishart Flett; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; de Grandpré, Louis-Philippe On appeal from Ontario Subjects Competition law Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada R. v. Anthes Business Forms et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 970 Date: 1977-02-15 Her Majesty The Queen (Plaintiff) Appellant; and Anthes Business Forms et al. (Defendants) Respondents. 1977: February 15. Present: Laskin C.J. and Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. Trade and Commerce—Combines—Conspiracy to unduly lessen competition—Association of companies requiring members to disclose prices of past orders taken where prices different from price list of members—Agreement applying only to past transactions—No conspiracy to “unduly” lessen competition—Meaning of word “undue”, question of law—Whether lessening of competition “undue”, question of fact—Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C 1952, c. 314, s. 32(1)(c). APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario[1] dismissing an appeal from the judgment of Grant J.[2] acquitting the respondents. Appeal dismissed. R. Heather and R. Murray, for the
appellant. J.J. Robinette, Q.C., and G.G.S. Takach, for the respondent Moore Business Forms Ltd. G.F. Henderson, Q.C., and G. Clarke, for the respondent R.L. Crane Ltd. J.W. Brown, Q.C., and C.S. Goldman, for the respondents Autographic Business Forms Ltd., Continuous Forms (Alberta) Ltd., Continuous Forms Ltd., Savoy Business Forms Ltd., Systems Equipment Ltd. and Western Business Forms Ltd. B.C. Bynoe, Q.C., for the respondent ABF Automated Business Forms (Western) Ltd. John Rook, for the respondent Keystone Business Forms Ltd. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by THE CHIEF JUSTICE—We are all of the opinion that this appeal fails for want of jurisdiction. In our view, taking the trial judge’s reasons as a whole, we are not persuaded that he misdirected himself on the law, nor do we think that we would be justified in treating a single paragraph in those reasons as disclosing an error of law when even Arnup J.A. in his dissent regarded that paragraph as ambiguous; and hence, as we view it, it is not clearly indicative of a reversible error of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Solicitor for the appellant: D.A.H. Heather, Toronto. Solicitors for Anthes Business Forms Ltd.: Miller, Thomson, Sedgewick, Toronto. Solicitors for Autographic Business Forms Ltd., Continuous Forms (Alberta) Ltd., Continuous Forms Ltd., Savoy Business Forms Ltd.,
Systems Equipment Ltd. and Western Business Forms Ltd.: Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto. Solicitor for ABF Automated Business Forms (Western) Ltd.: B. Clive Bynoe, Toronto. Solicitors for R.L. Crane Ltd.: Gowling & Henderson, Ottawa. Solicitors for Keystone Business Forms Ltd.: Holden, Murdoch & Walton, Toronto. Solicitors for Moore Business Forms Ltd.: McCarthy & McCarthy, Toronto. [1] (1975), 20 C.P.R. (2d) 1. [2] (1974), 16 C.P.R. (2d) 216.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.