Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Cineplex allegedly failed to include its Online Booking Fee in the advertised ticket price, raising concerns under the Competition Act.

• The plaintiff's evolving pleadings introduced new claims under multiple provincial consumer protection statutes and for unjust enrichment.

• The court had to decide whether the defendants’ strike application or the plaintiff’s certification motion should proceed first.

• Dispute arose over whether the older or newly amended claim (FANOCC) should be used in the strike motion.

• The judge emphasized that plaintiffs must take timely steps to advance class certification, even amidst shifting defendant counsel timelines.

• No damages or costs were awarded, but the defendants’ procedural motion to strike was allowed to proceed first.

Facts and outcome of the case

This case arises from a proposed consumer class action filed by Amir Hossein Bahraini against Cineplex Inc. and Cineplex Entertainment Limited Partnership. The central allegation is that Cineplex misled consumers by not including its Online Booking Fee in the initial price shown for movie tickets purchased through its website and app. Bahraini argues that this practice violates sections 52 and 54 of the Competition Act, which prohibit false or misleading representations to the public in a commercial context. The plaintiff also amended his claim over time to include allegations under multiple provincial consumer protection laws and to add a claim for unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff originally filed the lawsuit on January 22, 2024. Following correspondence and procedural developments, including Cineplex changing legal counsel, the plaintiff filed a Further Amended Notice of Civil Claim (FANOCC) in January 2025. This amended version included new statutory claims under consumer protection legislation in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. The plaintiff also reversed an earlier strategic choice and exercised his “free amendment” right under the Supreme Court Civil Rules to file the updated claim without seeking leave of the court.

Meanwhile, Cineplex had prepared, but not formally filed, a motion to strike parts of the plaintiff’s claim under Rule 9-5. A dispute arose as to whether the court should proceed first with Cineplex’s strike application or wait for the plaintiff to file for certification of the class action. Cineplex also argued that the court should consider the previous version of the claim (ANOCC) rather than the new FANOCC in evaluating its strike application.

Justice Branch ruled on July 21, 2025, that the defendants’ application to strike should proceed first, since it was the only ready application before the court and the plaintiff had failed to move promptly toward class certification. However, the judge also determined that the strike application must be assessed against the most recent version of the claim—the FANOCC—not the earlier pleading. This ruling ensures that the latest allegations, including those involving unjust enrichment and new provincial legislation, will be the basis for the upcoming legal arguments.

No final decision was made on the merits of the case, and no damages were awarded. Additionally, each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs due to the mixed outcome. The case will proceed to a hearing of the defendants’ strike application as the next step in litigation.