Case information

Constitutional law — Division of powers — Federal paramountcy — Interjurisdictional immunity —Whether provincial legislatures have constitutional authority to single out the services and rates of federal undertakings for targeted regulation — Does the decision in Bank of Montreal v. Marcotte, 2014 SCC 55, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 725 permit provinces to regulate federal undertakings’ customer contracts beyond the basic rules of contract in issue in that appeal — Is the Wireless Services Agreement Act, 2013, S.O. 2013, c. 8 (the WSAA) ultra vires the Province of Ontario — Is the WSAA inapplicable to TELUS under interjurisdictional immunity — Is the WSAA inoperative given paramount federal legislation and CRTC decisions.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The respondent commenced a proposed class action against the applicant (“Telus”) on behalf of Telus customers, excluding business customers, who between January 6, 2016 and October 1, 2018 cancelled their Wireless Service Agreements with Telus. She claimed damages pursuant to s. 72 (1) of the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38 and sought refunds pursuant to sections 16 and 17 of the WSAA. She alleged that the class members are entitled to pro rated refunds of prepaid charges because they were overcharged contrary to the Telecommunications Act, the WSAA and the Telecom Regulatory Policy 2013 271 (the “Wireless Code”) of the Canadian Radio television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”).
In response to a motion by the respondent for certification of a class action, Telus brought a cross-motion. It argued that the WSAA is ultra vires the province of Ontario under the Constitution Act, 1867, Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict, c. 3, ss. 91, 92 (10)(a) or, alternatively, that it is inoperative pursuant to the constitutional law doctrines of paramountcy and interjurisdictional immunity. Telus also sought to have the respondent’s action stayed or dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the CRTC, and not the superior court, has substantive jurisdiction over the claim. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the respondent has a certifiable class action to advance a claim under the WSAA but not a claim for damages related to the Wireless Code of the Telecommunications Act. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Telus’s appeal.