Canadian Competition Law Outlook 2026: From Reform To Reality

Competition Law Reset: What 2026 Holds for Business in Canada

Competition law in Canada is in the midst of a once‑in‑a‑generation reset. With three consecutive reform waves in 2022, 2023 and 2024, Parliament has significantly overhauled the Competition Act (Act) — a modernization effort that includes addressing digital‑economy dynamics and affordability concerns.

These recent amendments have broad implications for how businesses operate in Canada, including significant changes to merger review following the elimination of the efficiencies defence, the introduction of a rebuttable structural presumption deeming mergers to be anti-competitive solely based on concentration or market share, the revision of merger notification rules to subject more transactions to mandatory pre-merger notification, and the extension of the look-back period for the Competition Bureau (Bureau) to challenge non-notified mergers to three years (versus one year for notified mergers) after closing.

Beyond affecting merger review, these reforms also impact a broad swath of the Act. The test for abuse of dominance has been overhauled, while penalties have been increased; wage-fixing and no-poach agreements have been criminalized; the deceptive marketing provisions have been expanded, including by introducing explicit greenwashing rules that place the onus of proof on advertisers; and the Bureau can now seek to compel the production of documents and data for market studies. Significantly, the private access regime has been expanded to allow private parties to bring applications for monetary relief with respect to essentially all actionable conduct (other than mergers).

For businesses, the key questions include: What do these changes mean in practice? How are businesses going to remain competitive? What challenges and opportunities are presented given Canada's trade policies? Answers are starting to emerge, including an increased focus by the Bureau on market definition and concentration measures in merger reviews.

It is not surprising, however, that many of the practical implications remain to be seen, given that the latest amendments only took effect in 2025 amid significant geopolitical and economic shifts. This may be the year these reforms take root — 2026 is expected to be a year of continued evolution in Canadian competition law as stakeholders across the competition law landscape, including the Bureau, businesses and policymakers, continue to adapt to the new normal of Canadian competition law.

Key trends and practices to watch in 2026 include:

• Early and Proactive Strategic Assessment. A strategic approach to competition law implications, including careful early and proactive planning for both transactions and day-to-day conduct, can help businesses identify areas of risk, develop strategies to increase the likelihood of a successful outcome and effectively address risks.
• Rise of Private Enforcement. Broader private access and monetary relief make private applications before the Competition Tribunal (Tribunal) more attractive to competitors, customers and advocacy groups.
• Keep Compliance Policies Up to Date. The shifts in the competition law landscape wrought by the recent amendments are significant in both substance and procedure. Businesses should update compliance policies and training programs to reflect the current state of the law.

Leadership Transition: Will It Be More of the Same or a New Direction?

On December 17, 2025, then Commissioner of Competition (Commissioner) Matthew Boswell stepped down, ending his term early. In his place, Senior Deputy Commissioner Jeanne Pratt has become Acting Commissioner. Pratt's background leading the Bureau's Mergers and Monopolistic Practices Branch, which has been affected by some of the most consequential reforms now in force, has reduced the typical leadership transition lag. Operationally, businesses should expect continuity with limited shifts in priorities pending the appointment of a permanent Commissioner, which is expected in early 2026. In the interim, the Bureau will continue to lean into structural presumptions in mergers, take an expansive view of abuse of dominance, scrutinize misleading advertising and pricing conduct, and utilize its compelled information‑gathering powers against parties and non-parties alike. In the words of Acting Commissioner Pratt, the Bureau will keep its "foot on the gas."

Once appointed, the new Commissioner will step into a competition law regime in flux, where the impact of recent amendments continues to reverberate, while the economic environment in which those amendments were first formulated has been replaced by one replete with heightened economic and geopolitical tensions. The Commissioner sets the tone for the entire agency, including enforcement priorities and overall approach to mergers, conduct and other aspects of the Act — and to the business community writ large. Whether the government appoints a new Commissioner who will share their predecessor's views and priorities or push the Bureau in a new direction remains to be seen. Regardless, given the context in which the new Commissioner will be appointed, they will be positioned to play an important role in establishing the competition law landscape for a future where alliances are shifting, relationships are adjusting and a new normal is taking hold.

Key Takeaways for Businesses:

• Continuity in the Interim. An Acting Commissioner steeped in mergers and trade practices suggests no pause in existing enforcement priorities. Expect rigorous deployment of new statutory tools and a continued focus on key sectors that resonate with Canadian consumers, including housing, food supply and other industries that directly impact affordability, and artificial intelligence.
• A Potential Reset in the Long-Term. A new Commissioner may want to put their stamp on the organization, defining its priorities and reorienting its direction. The magnitude of those shifts will depend on the new appointee and the government's overall direction.
• Compliance Refresh. Updates to Bureau guidance that are currently in progress are likely to be paused until a new Commissioner is appointed so that the guidance reflects their priorities. Corporate compliance policies will need to be modified to reflect updated Bureau guidance once it is released.

Mergers: More Tools, More Traps and More Rigorous Reviews

Recent amendments have significantly revised the merger control rules and restocked the Bureau's toolbox for reviewing mergers and challenging those it views as anti-competitive. The Bureau is expected to use these new tools to undertake more in-depth merger reviews (including non-notifiable mergers), rely more heavily on market definition, seek remedies and challenge transactions before the Tribunal. This more aggressive posture toward mergers ties into recent amendments, including: to the Act and the Bureau's current practices in merger reviews.

• Market Share-Based Presumptions and Rebuttals. The Act now includes a rebuttable structural presumption that a merger is anti-competitive if it exceeds certain concentration or market share thresholds. In practice, this upends the evidentiary playbook by placing the burden on merging parties to establish that the merger is not anti-competitive, focusing on market definition and market shares (which in many industries can be exceedingly difficult to discern given the lack of public information) and requiring the parties to supply compelling evidence — ideally corroborated by third parties — to rebut the presumption. The Bureau's draft Merger Enforcement Guidelines (MEGs) indicate that the evidentiary burden to rebut the presumption increases the more the merger exceeds the structural thresholds. This focus on market definition and the requirements for rebuttal evidence, which may include customer‑level data (switching, win‑loss, invoice and bid records), credible entry or expansion narratives, and other evidence, will increase the resource burden on merging parties with the potential to prolong the Bureau's review, even for transactions that are ultimately cleared.
• Expanding the Net. The notification rules have been revised to capture more mergers by (i) including sales "into" Canada when assessing the size of transaction threshold; and (ii) explicitly requiring asset and revenue values to be combined in assessing the thresholds where a transaction involves the acquisition of both assets and shares of a corporation. The Bureau's ability to review completed mergers has been enhanced by extending the period during which it can challenge a non notified merger to three years. In October 2025, the Bureau obtained court orders requiring the parties to a non-notified merger that closed in December 2024 to produce records and data relevant to the Bureau's review of the transaction.
• Can Problematic Mergers Still Be Cleared With Remedies? The remedy standard for mergers has also been raised, now requiring that remedies "restore" competition to the level that would have prevailed in the absence of the merger, rather than mitigate any prevention or lessening of competition resulting from the merger so that it would no longer be substantial. This more stringent remedy standard favours structural remedies and will require more thorough assessments of divestiture buyers and remedy effectiveness.

Key Takeaways for Businesses:

• Planning Is Paramount. Early and proactive transaction planning is critical to successful merger execution. Transaction timetables must account for data collection and economic work, particularly where remedies may be required. Where non-notifiable mergers may raise substantive concerns, parties need to carefully weigh the benefits of filing voluntarily to limit post‑closing exposure and ensure that risk-sharing provisions of the agreement are appropriately drafted.
• Be Ready With Verifiable Evidence. Where a merger approaches or exceeds the rebuttable structural presumption, parties need to be prepared with empirical and verifiable evidence to rebut a presumption that a merger may be anti-competitive. This burden is amplified the more that the merger exceeds the presumption, as the parties may be required to present more and/or stronger evidence to rebut it.
• Design Remedy Solutions at the Outset, Not at the End. Remedy planning should be treated as part of deal design, not as a contingency. Pre‑packaged divestiture solutions, credible buyers and, where appropriate, "fix‑it‑first" proposals can materially improve outcomes. Transaction terms should be drafted to preserve flexibility in the face of potential remedy requirements, including extended timelines to effectuate remedies.

To view the full article, click here.