CANADA Trends and Developments Contributed by: David Gadsden, Brendan O’Grady and Anton Rizor, Baker McKenzie
tive monetary penalties in proceedings under Section 90.1. Together, these changes create stronger incen - tives for private parties to pursue antitrust claims before the Competition Tribunal. In January 2026, the Competition Tribunal released the first decision interpreting the new public inter - est leave test under subsection 103.1 (7) in Martin v Alphabet Inc . et al . The applicant sought leave to bring proceedings alleging that the defendants maintained their dominance in the market for general internet search services through agreements with each other. The proposed application alleged that the respond - ents’ conduct constitutes abuse of dominance under Section 79 and anti-competitive agreements under Section 90.1. The Competition Tribunal dismissed the application for leave. The main issue was the proper interpretation of the new public interest standing provision. The Tribunal held that subsection 103.1 (7) incorporates the com - mon law doctrine of public interest standing, adapted to the antitrust context. The Tribunal adopted a three- part test. First, the proposed application must raise a substantial and genuine antitrust dispute supported by sufficient evidence. Mere plausibility is not enough. Applicants must provide a sufficient factual foundation showing a realistic possibility that the alleged conduct could satisfy the requirements of Section 79 or Section 90.1. Second, the applicant must demonstrate a genuine interest in the matter. This requires more than ordi - nary market participation and meaningful connection to antitrust enforcement or public interest advocacy. Third, the applicant must establish that the proposed proceeding is a reasonable and effective means of advancing antitrust enforcement. Relevant considera - tions include the applicant’s readiness and capacity to prosecute complex proceedings before the Tribunal. Emerging Focus: Drip Pricing Litigation Canadian lawmakers recently added express drip pricing provisions to the Competition Act. Drip pricing is a deceptive marketing practice where a company advertises a price that is not attainable due to fixed
obligatory charges or fees. The Competition Act also contains prohibitions against double ticketing, which occurs when a company advertises two prices for a product and charges the higher of the two. Over the past year, the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal have released important decisions considering the new drip pricing prohibitions under the Competition Act in the context of class proceed - ings and regulatory enforcement. Class action certification of drip pricing claim Last year, the Federal Court of Canada certified a drip pricing class action for the first time but declined to certify the plaintiff’s double-ticketing claim ( Deane v Canada Post Corporation , 2025 FC 1194). In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s online services failed to disclose the full price because a “fuel surcharge” was added later in the purchas - ing process. The plaintiff sought damages under the Competition Act and moved to certify the action as a class action on behalf of herself and other Canadians that used the relevant online services platform and were charged the fuel surcharge. The alleged misconduct involved three of the defend - ant’s online platforms and concerned the defendant’s online purchasing form. Users would complete the form by entering shipping details. The defendant’s website would then display generated prices for various shipping service options without the fuel sur - charge. Once the customer selected a shipping ser - vice, the defendant’s website would display a sum - mary box with an updated price breakdown including the fuel surcharge, as well as any discounts and taxes, and the estimated total. The Federal Court certified the drip pricing cause of action. The Federal Court concluded that the sum - mary box “discloses a second price with the fuel surcharge only after users have selected a service displayed at a first price in box number 4” and that it was “arguable that the fuel surcharge is ‘added’ to the first price disclosed in box number 4” contrary to the drip pricing prohibitions under the Competition Act. Further, the Federal Court found that the plaintiff had pleaded the necessary elements to claim loss or
59 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook