Sun v. Bloomex, Inc.

Sun v. Bloomex, Inc.

The Court held Bloomex’s motion to strike the Strikethrough Pricing Claims and the Star Ratings Claims under Rules 221(1)(a),(c) and (f) must be dismissed because, read generously, the FASC contains sufficient material facts and particulars to address each element of s.52(1) and to plead damages and causation based on loss of expected value; however, certain passages consisting of impermissible evidentiary detail (the second sentence of para 9 and paras 19–27) are evidence and are struck under Rule 174, while other particulars and screenshots (first sentence of para 9 and paras 18, 28, 29) are retained as material particulars; costs of $5,000 awarded to the plaintiff; prior procedural...

Citation
2025 FC 1239
Parties
Plaintiff/responding Party: Diana Sun; Defendant/moving Party: Bloomex, Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Class Action (proposed Class Proceeding) / Motion to Strike / Pre Certification
Outcome
Defendant's motion to strike dismissed in part; specified evidentiary paragraphs struck; substantive claims for strikethrough pricing and star ratings remain
Legal Topics
Drip Pricing, False or Misleading Representations, Double Ticketing, Struck Through Pricing, Star Ratings, Pleading Sufficiency, Motions to Strike, Evidence in Pleadings, Damages Loss of Expected Value, Causation and Reliance
Source Language
English
Competition Law Class Actions Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Drip Pricing False or Misleading Representations Double Ticketing Struck Through Pricing +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diana Sun

Plaintiff/responding Party

Bloomex, Inc.

Defendant/moving Party

Procedural Posture

Class Action (proposed Class Proceeding) / Motion to Strike / Pre Certification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Further Amended Statement of Claim contains impermissible evidence under Rule 174
  2. 2 Whether the Strikethrough Pricing Claims should be struck under Rules 221(1)(a),(c) or (f)
  3. 3 Whether the Star Ratings Claims should be struck under Rules 221(1)(a),(c) or (f)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held Bloomex’s motion to strike the Strikethrough Pricing Claims and the Star Ratings Claims under Rules 221(1)(a),(c) and (f) must be dismissed because, read generously, the FASC contains sufficient material facts and particulars to address each element of s.52(1) and to plead damages and causation based on loss of expected value; however, certain passages consisting of impermissible evidentiary detail (the second sentence of para 9 and paras 19–27) are evidence and are struck under Rule 174, while other particulars and screenshots (first sentence of para 9 and paras 18, 28, 29) are retained as material particulars; costs of $5,000 awarded to the plaintiff; prior procedural...

Court Disposition

Defendant's motion to strike dismissed in part; specified evidentiary paragraphs struck; substantive claims for strikethrough pricing and star ratings remain

Orders

  • Strike the second sentence of paragraph 9 of the FASC and the entirety of paragraphs 19–27 from the FASC
  • Dismiss Bloomex's request to strike the first sentence of paragraph 9 and paragraphs 18, 28 and 29 of the FASC