Competition Tribunal scraps Google’s Charter appeal, says it does not pass ‘true penal consequence’ test

The Competition Tribunal has canned Google’s Charter appeal, allowing a lawsuit based on the company’s alleged anti-competitive conduct to proceed, saying it failed to meet the “indisputably high bar” of the true penal consequence test. The Charter appeal was filed in February 2025, when the Alphabet Inc. subsidiary snapped back at the Competition Bureau’s 2024 lawsuit alleging Google engaged in anti-competitive conduct in the online advertising market. Google’s motion argued it was “charged with an offence” under section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the administrative monetary penalty (AMP) sought by the bureau constituted a true penal consequence. Since, it claimed, it was being charged with an offence, Google argued it was entitled to rights under the Charter and the Bill of Rights – which, it said, had been violated because the company was “compelled to produce documents, data, and information to the Commissioner prior to and during these proceedings,” the decision read. As such, Google motioned the entire proceeding should be permanently stayed, or the documents, data, and information collected in a “compulsory manner” should be excluded from use by the commissioner in the proceeding. More than a year after the motion was filed, the Tribunal ruled on Mar. 3 that Google has not been charged with an offence because the AMP did not pass the Supreme Court’s test for a true penal consequence. The ruling means Google was never entitled to the claimed Charter rights to begin with, therefore they could not be violated. The decision, delivered by Justice Andrew D. Little, noted a true penal consequence is “imprisonment or a fine which by its magnitude would appear to be imposed for the purpose of redressing the wrong done to society at large rather than to the maintenance of internal discipline within (a) limited sphere of activity.” Google argued the AMP, which it said could amount to $91 billion, is “unprecedented in Canadian history” and “is hundreds of times larger than the largest criminal fines ever imposed,” the decision read. The Tribunal did not agree with Google’s position that the AMP far exceeded the necessary amount to ensure compliance with the Competition Act, and therefore landed in true penal consequence territory. Little referenced the 2015 case Guindon v. Canada, which addressed the distinction between criminal and regulatory penalties. In Guindon, the court said “In some cases, sizable penalties are necessary so the penalty is not simply considered a cost of doing business,” the decision read. Both Google and the commissioner made arguments about the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The commissioner argued the Tribunal had not ordered an AMP of true penal consequence because subsection 79(3.1) to (3.3) of the Competition Act limits the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and that any AMP ordered cannot be for punitive purposes. Google disagreed with that, arguing subsection 79(3.1)(b) of the Act “expressly authorizes” the tribunal to impose punitive AMPs. Little did not agree with either side, saying the tribunal’s legal jurisdiction is not limited by aforementioned provisions, nor do they “authorize” the tribunal to order an AMP that is punitive or a true penal consequence. In a press release on Mar. 4, acting commissioner Jeanne Pratt issued a statement saying the bureau “welcome” the Tribunal’s decision, which “reinforces its clear authority to order administrative monetary penalties to promote compliance and deter anti-competitive behaviour.” “Our case against Google continues,” the statement added. “We continue to stand by our investigative findings that, through its anti-competitive conduct, Google has been able to entrench its dominance, prevent rivals from competing, inhibit innovation, inflate advertising costs and reduce publishers’ revenues.” An emailed statement to The Wire Report attributed to Dan Taylor, vice president of global ads at Google, said “Our advertising technology tools help websites and apps fund their content, and enable businesses of all sizes to effectively reach new customers.” “Google remains committed to creating value for our publisher and advertiser partners in this highly competitive sector. The complaint ignores the intense competition where ad buyers and sellers have plenty of choice,” the statement continued. Google says it is evaluating the decision. mcollins@thewirereport.ca

Competition Tribunal scraps Google’s Charter appeal, says it does not pass ‘true penal consequence’ test

Court |
By Maria Collins
|March 5, 2026

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Competition Tribunal scraps Google’s Charter appeal, says it does not pass ‘true penal consequence’ test

Court | By Maria Collins |March 5, 2026

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Telesat vows to fight creditor lawsuits in Ontario and New York

Industry minister to conduct new national security review of TikTok, Canadian business allowed to continue operating for now

Producers challenge 20 per cent copyright threshold in new CanCon policy

Related Stories

Ex-Competition Bureau head Matthew Boswell joins Norton Rose Fulbright

A look at what’s to come in 2026 for telecoms, broadcasting, digital policy

OPINION | Boswell woke up Canada’s competition watchdog. With his departure imminent, it must get to work.

Competition Commissioner Matthew Boswell announces Jeanne Pratt as interim replacement as he prepares to step down

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Court |
By Maria Collins
|March 5, 2026