Canada Case Law

Rogers Communications Canada Inc. v. Timeless Inc.

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Commission's remedy ordering staff‑assisted mediation and, if unsuccessful, final offer arbitration was a reasonable, discretionary response to an undue preference finding; its reasons were adequate when read in context, Rogers waived its complaint about new evidence, and claims that the Commission lacked power or was functus officio were either not raised below or unpersuasive; appeal and judicial review are dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Undue preference
• Remedies
• Alternative dispute resolution
• Judicial review
• Reasons for decision
• Functus officio

Read case analysis

Rogers-Shaw - Reasons for Order and Order

Court

Competition Tribunal

The Tribunal found the operative proposed merger to be the three‑way transaction including the Divestiture to Videotron and concluded, on the evidence, that the Merger and Divestiture are not likely to prevent or lessen competition substantially in the consumer wireless markets in Alberta and British Columbia; accordingly the Commissioner’s application under s.92 is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Section 92 (merger review)
• Divestiture
• Efficiencies defence (s.96)
• Market definition
• Unilateral effects
• Coordinated effects

Read case analysis

Rogers - Shaw - Reasons for Order and Order Dismissing the Motion for leave to Intervene by J.P. Roman

Court

Competition Tribunal

The motion was dismissed because the proposed intervener failed to show he is directly affected by the proceeding and failed to demonstrate a unique or distinct perspective relevant to the Competition Act issues; the motion materials were also procedurally deficient under Rule 43, and therefore intervention would not assist the Tribunal.

Source excerpt

• Substantial lessening of competition
• Intervention
• Remedies
• Regulatory jurisdiction (crtc)

Read case analysis

Rogers - Shaw - Motifs d'ordonnance et ordonnance rejetant la demande d'intervention de J.P. Roman (traduction)

Court

Competition Tribunal

The application for leave to intervene was denied because the proposed intervenor did not demonstrate he would be directly affected by the proceeding, failed to show a unique or particular perspective relevant to the competition issues under s.92, and did not comply with the Tribunal's rules on intervention materials.

Source excerpt

• Section 92 competition act
• Leave to intervene
• Procedural rules for intervention
• Jurisdiction of crtc vs tribunal

Read case analysis

Petukhov v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court allowed judicial review, quashed ISED’s finding that tower consultation was complete, and required Bragg to redo the consultation steps.

• Procedural fairness
• Public consultation
• Reasonableness review
• Delegation
• Statutory interpretation
• Procedural-fairness

Read case analysis

Telus Communications (B.C.) Inc. v. Assessor of Area #09 – Vancouver Sea to Sky Region

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed Telus’s appeal, holding the Board reasonably treated Cable Vault relocation costs as value to owner, not market value.

• Highest and best use
• Market value
• Value to owner
• Replacement cost valuation
• Standard of review (reasonableness)
• Property-taxation

Read case analysis

Safire v. Halifax Regional Municipality

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court held the HRM letter of concurrence was part of a federal consultation process under the Radiocommunication Act and related federal policy and therefore not a municipal decision subject to provincial judicial review; the provincial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought and the Notice of Judicial Review was struck, with the Applicant required to seek redress in Federal Court.

Source excerpt

• Judicial review
• Jurisdiction
• Standing
• Mootness
• Delegation of authority
• Antenna siting

Read case analysis

Telus Communications (BC) Inc. v. Asessor of Area #09

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court upheld the Board’s valuation of Telus’s property for redevelopment, finding relocation costs tied to regulatory obligations were not relevant to market value.

• Highest and best use
• Value to owner
• Obligation to serve
• Relocation costs
• Standard of review - reasonableness
• Property-assessment

Read case analysis

Mills v. Bell Mobility Inc.

Court

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Complainant established a prima facie discrimination: Bell's in-person visual-ID requirement prevented substantively equal access to same-day postpaid activation for a disabled, homebound person. Bell failed the third Grismer/undue hardship limb because it produced no evidence it assessed or attempted reasonable accommodations or the costs/risks of alternatives; accordingly bona fide justification not established and the complaint is substantiated, requiring remedial orders and compensation.

Source excerpt

• Service accommodation
• Bona fide justification
• Undue hardship
• Same-day activation
• Identity fraud prevention
• Compensation for pain and suffering

Read case analysis

8640025 Canada Inc. v. TELUS Communications Company

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court refused 8640025 Canada Inc.’s interlocutory injunction to stop TELUS from disconnecting services, finding no irreparable harm and that the balance favored TELUS.

• Interlocutory injunction
• Termination of service agreements
• Mandatory vs prohibitory injunction
• Irreparable harm
• Balance of convenience
• Breach of settlement condition

Read case analysis