Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff alleged that Canada Post engaged in deceptive "drip pricing" by displaying a lower price before adding a mandatory fuel surcharge.

• Certification was granted solely for the drip pricing claim under section 52(1.3) of the Competition Act.

• The claim for double ticketing under section 54 was denied, deemed plainly inapplicable to e-commerce contexts.

• Canada Post argued the surcharge was disclosed within a unified checkout page and was therefore not misleading.

• The court found it arguable that presenting the surcharge later in the checkout process constituted a deceptive practice.

• No damages or legal costs were awarded at this certification stage; the case proceeds to trial on the merits.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and claims

In this case, the plaintiff Marci Deane brought a proposed class action on behalf of individuals and businesses in Canada who used three of Canada Post’s online shipping tools—Snap Ship, Ship Online, and Shipping Manager—on or after June 23, 2022, and were charged a fuel surcharge. Deane, a long-standing small business customer of Canada Post, claimed the fuel surcharge was added after an initial price was presented, thus misleading consumers about the actual cost of shipping.

Deane alleged violations of two provisions of the Competition Act: section 52(1.3), which addresses "drip pricing," and section 54, which prohibits "double ticketing." The claim was brought under section 36 of the Act, which allows private parties to sue for damages resulting from criminal offences under the Act.

Legal framework and certification motion

The motion for certification required satisfying five criteria under Rule 334.16(1) of the Federal Courts Rules: a reasonable cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues of law and fact, preferable procedure, and an appropriate representative plaintiff. The court examined whether the addition of a fuel surcharge partway through the online checkout process amounted to drip pricing and whether this practice supported class certification.

Canada Post opposed certification, arguing that the pricing information was fully disclosed on a single page and that all customers had access to the surcharge details before purchase confirmation. They also argued that all customers had agreed to terms and conditions disclosing potential additional charges, and thus, there was no actionable misrepresentation.

Court’s reasoning and findings

The court found that the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient facts to support a claim under section 52(1.3). It noted that the purchasing process showed an initial, unattainable price and only revealed the fuel surcharge in a static summary box after a user selected a shipping service. The court accepted this could reasonably be considered drip pricing, where a mandatory charge is added later in a way that misleads consumers.

The double ticketing claim under section 54, however, was rejected. The court held that section 54 was designed for cases where two or more prices are displayed simultaneously and the higher price is charged. Since the Canada Post pricing model involved a sequential price disclosure—initial price followed by an added surcharge—the court ruled that section 54 was plainly inapplicable in this context, especially following the enactment of section 52(1.3) specifically for drip pricing.

Outcome

The Federal Court certified the class proceeding solely on the basis of the alleged breach of section 52(1.3), rejecting the section 54 claim entirely. Marci Deane was appointed as representative plaintiff, and the class was defined as those charged a fuel surcharge using the specified shipping platforms on or after June 23, 2022.

The court ordered no costs to either party and emphasized that the case would now proceed to trial where the factual merits of the claim, including damages, would be determined. The quantum of any potential damages remains undecided.