Case information

Constitutional law — Division of powers — Federal paramountcy — Interjurisdictional immunity — Point at which provincial legislation on terms, conditions and rates for contracts becomes, in purpose or effect, legislation governing terms, conditions and rates for telecommunications services, which fall within exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament — Extent to which provincial jurisdiction over consumer protection allows legislatures to regulate terms, conditions and rates for telecommunications services without impairing Parliament’s powers over this matter — Point at which provincial legislation governing terms, conditions and rates for contracts frustrates purpose of Act of Parliament and triggers paramountcy doctrine, where, in relation to those same terms, conditions and rates, federal regulator has deliberately decided to exercise its powers of forbearance with respect to rates in order to comply with its enabling legislation.

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.

Between November 2012 and May 2013, 364 charges were brought by the Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP) against the applicant (Telus) for contraventions of sections 11.2, 11.3, 13, 214.2 and 214.7 of the Québec Consumer Protection Act, CQLR, c. P-40.1 (CPA). Telus defended itself in part by arguing that the CPA provisions were constitutionally invalid, inapplicable and inoperable, and were ultra vires the province as they interfere with the core federal jurisdiction over telecommunications and conflict with the purpose of the Telecommunications Act, SC 1993, ch. 38. The Court of Québec held that the impugned provisions were unconstitutional on the basis of the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy, and declared the provisions inapplicable to and inoperative against the applicant. Telus was acquitted of the offences. The Superior Court of Quebec allowed in part an appeal by the respondents. The court determined that the impugned provisions were within the jurisdiction of the province and applicable and enforceable against the applicant, except for part of s. 214.7 and s. 214.8 of the CPA, which it declared inoperative for the period following the adoption by the CRTC of the 2013 Wireless Code. Telus brought an appeal to reverse the judgment and the respondents appealed the decision on the inoperability of ss. 214.7 and 214.8 of the CPA. The Court of Appeal of Quebec dismissed the appeal by Telus and allowed the respondents’ appeal for the purpose of deleting and modifying portions of the lower court order.