BC Supreme Court strikes double ticketing claim but not drip pricing claim against Cineplex

The British Columbia Supreme Court has partly granted Cineplex Inc.’s and Cineplex Entertainment Limited Partnership’s motion to strike a plaintiff’s claims under the Competition Act, 1985, with a double-ticketing claim struck and a drip-pricing claim not struck. 

Bahraini v Cineplex Inc., 2026 BCSC 664, arose from an online booking fee that Cineplex introduced in June 2022 for ticket purchases made on its website or its mobile application. Fees ranged from $1.50 to $6 per ticket order, with loyalty program members eligible for reduced fees. 

On May 18, 2023, through an application under the Competition Act before the Competition Tribunal, the competition commissioner alleged that Cineplex engaged in reviewable conduct under s. 74.01(1), which prohibited false or misleading representations, and s. 74.01(1.1), which characterized certain drip-pricing representations as false or misleading. 

On Sept. 23, 2024, the tribunal ordered Cineplex to update its website and mobile app upon finding Competition Act breaches. The tribunal imposed an administrative monetary penalty of almost $40 million, representing the aggregate amount of fees collected since the introduction of the online booking fee in mid-2022 until the end of 2023. 

Cineplex appealed the tribunal’s order to the Federal Court of Appeal. 

Meanwhile, the plaintiff initiated a proposed consumer class action against Cineplex on Jan. 22, 2024, and filed a further amended notice of civil claim (FANOCC) on Jan. 16, 2025. In the FANOCC, the plaintiff added claims: 

• under BC’s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, 2004, 
• under consumer protection legislation in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. 
• for unjust enrichment 

In response to the plaintiff’s proposed consumer class action, Cineplex moved to strike portions of the FANOCC under r. 9-5(1)(a) or (b) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, BC Reg 168/2009, specifically the drip-pricing and double-ticketing claims under the Competition Act. 

Cineplex argued that s. 52(7) of the Competition Act plainly and obviously barred the plaintiff from bringing a drip-pricing claim, as the commissioner had previously brought civil enforcement proceedings concerning the same legal and factual issues. 

Drip-pricing claim to proceed

The Supreme Court of British Columbia did not find it plain and obvious that s. 52(7) of the Competition Act barred the drip-pricing claim. The court did not find the plaintiff’s action doomed to fail in this area. 

The court based these findings on the following arguable lines of reasoning, which the plaintiff could assert: 

• s. 52(7) only barred cases commenced under s. 52 of the Competition Act, while the plaintiff might have brought their claim under s. 36 
• The absence of the language in s. 74.16 of the Competition Act – specifically, “made by the Commissioner” – in s. 52(7) did not expand its plain language, which meant that s. 52(7) still required the plaintiff to bring the claim under s. 52 to trigger the bar 
• The absence of the word “prosecutions” in s. 52(7) also did not necessarily expand its plain language 
• Carrefour Langelier v. Cineplex Odeon Corp., 1999 CanLII 11248 (QC CS), was an “illegality” case, not a competition law case, that involved a different Competition Act section 
• In terms of policy, Cineplex’s proposed interpretation would effectively establish a first-to-file rule between civil claims in the BC Supreme Court and reviewable matters in the Competition Tribunal 
• Some legislative history evidence suggested that s. 52(7) aimed to address the simultaneous pursuit of remedies for criminal and administrative reviewable conduct, not civil actions 
• General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. City National Leasing, 1989 CanLII 133 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 641, indicated a public interest in permitting some duplication if necessary to ensure the full compensation of the public for criminal competition wrongs 
• Interpreting s. 52(7) harmoniously with s. 52(6) of the Competition Act, s. 52(7) potentially sought to confirm that choosing to pursue an issue as reviewable conduct would prevent simultaneously pursuing it as criminal conduct 
• On Cineplex’s theory regarding Canada’s anti-spam amending statute, Cineplex largely based its argument on a review of another Competition Act section with a distinct legislative history 

Double-ticketing claim struck

Regarding the double-ticketing claim, the BC Supreme Court agreed with Cineplex’s arguments that the plaintiff: 

• pleaded facts that placed the claim beyond the scope of s. 54 of the Competition Act 
• suggested an interpretation of s. 54 that would render s. 52(1.3) of the Competition Act meaningless 

The court saw no need for the subsequent implementation of s. 52(1.3) if s. 54 already covered sequential price representations. 

The court added that the plaintiff intended the drip-pricing and double-ticketing claims to be mutually exclusive.