The introduction of the drip pricing provisions to the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 by way of Bill C-19 in 2022 has delivered a wave of proposed class actions challenging various ways Canadian businesses display prices and add-on fees. In July, the Federal Court issued its reasons for its first decision to certify a drip pricing class action in Deane v. Canada Post Corporation, 2025 FC 1194. The decision, currently under appeal, covers many framework issues for the offence of drip pricing and demarcates the boundaries between drip pricing and double ticketing. In this blog post, we will take a critical look at the Federal Court's reasons and analyze some issues that may be addressed in the pending appeal of this decision.
What is Drip Pricing?
As defined in the Competition Act, drip pricing is the act of representing a price "that is not attainable due to fixed obligatory charges or fees" other than sums imposed by an act of Parliament or the provincial legislatures (such as sales tax). For example, online booking fees added to the price of a movie ticket were found to be an example of drip pricing last year in Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. Cineplex Inc., 2024 Comp Trib 5 (also under appeal in A-346-24).
As the Federal Court acknowledges in paragraph 84 of Deane, several requirements have to be met for a price representation to fall afoul of the drip pricing provisions: (i) the initially-represented price must not be attainable; (ii) the additional charge or fee must be fixed; (iii) the additional charge or fee must be obligatory; and (iv) the additional charge or fee must not be imposed by acts of Parliament or the provincial legislatures.
The Decision
The alleged drip pricing in Deane concerned the exclusion of fuel surcharges from Canada Post's display of the price of various delivery services on three of its online platforms, used by small business owners, large commercial customers, and individual consumers respectively. In the period considered by the motions judge, Canada Post imposed a fuel surcharge of between 13-26% of the price of a chosen shipping service. The entire purchase process was contained on a single page. However, customers clicked through four boxes that required them to: (i) enter their own location; (ii) enter the destination of the package; (iii) enter the type of package, dimensions and weight; and finally (iv) generated prices of various shipping service options that are then displayed. Once a shipping service is selected, a summary box of the customer's order at the top of the page will update to show the price of the selected shipping service, a customer discount if any, a fuel surcharge, an estimated total before taxes, estimated taxes, and an estimated total.
The plaintiff alleged that the omission of Canada Post's fuel surcharge from the price of the shipping service options in box (iv) amounted to drip pricing as "a representation of a price that is not attainable due to fixed obligatory charges" contrary to s. 52(1.3) and double ticketing contrary to s. 54 of the Competition Act despite...
