Court Of Appeal Refuses To Stay Non-Consumer Claims In Cellphone Class Action

BL
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Contributor

BLG is a leading, national, full-service Canadian law firm focusing on business law, commercial litigation, and intellectual property solutions for our clients. BLG is one of the country’s largest law firms with more than 750 lawyers, intellectual property agents and other professionals in five cities across Canada.
The Court of Appeal held in Wellman v. TELUS Communications Company that the motion judge, Justice Belobaba, was correct in holding that an arbitration clause in cellphone contracts did not entitle TELUS...
Canada Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The Court of Appeal held in Wellman v. TELUS Communications Company that the motion judge, Justice Belobaba, was correct in holding that an arbitration clause in cellphone contracts did not entitle TELUS to a partial stay of proceedings in a class action in which cellphone customers claimed that TELUS improperly rounded-up usage to the next minute for the purposes of billing without disclosing the practice. The relevant cellphone contracts contained arbitration clauses. TELUS conceded that the claims by consumers could proceed in court pursuant to section 7(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002. However, TELUS argued that the claims by non-consumers should be stayed so that they could be resolved in arbitration, pursuant to section 7(5) of the Arbitration Act. Justice Belobaba held that the Court of Appeal's decision in Griffin v. Dell Canada Inc. was determinative, and he refused to stay the non-consumer claims. In Griffin, a five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal held that since section 7(5) of the Arbitration Act gave the judge discretion to separate arbitral claims from non-arbitral claims, it was inappropriate for the court to do so in the circumstances.

TELUS argued that Griffin had been overtaken by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Seidel v. TELUS Communications. In Seidel, the Supreme Court held that claims covered by the British Columbia consumer protection legislation could proceed in court, but the common law claims should be stayed and proceed to arbitration. The Court of Appeal in Wellman distinguished Seidel, pointing to the Supreme Court's holding that the case turned on the specific statutory regime in B.C. Noting differences between the B.C. and Ontario statutes, the Court of Appeal held that Justice Belobaba was correct in finding that Griffin was not overtaken by Seidel.

This decision is notable for any businesses who use standard form contracts with consumers and non-consumers. In respect of class actions brought by mixed classes of consumers and non-consumers, Ontario courts will not send any claims to arbitration, which increases defendants' exposure in class actions that can be connected to consumers.

About BLG

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More