Quebec court denies Videotron’s appeal in Bell lawsuit

The Quebec Court of Appeal has denied an application for leave to appeal from Quebecor Inc.’s Videotron regarding its ongoing $50 million lawsuit from BCE Inc.’s Bell Mobility. In a June 29 decision Justice Robert Mainville rejected the telco’s request to appeal the court’s April 26 decision refusing access to redacted confidential information submitted by Bell in the proceedings. According to translated French-language court documents. This is the latest development in the now four year long dispute between the wireless competitors over acceptable levels of wholesale roaming services, with Bell claiming that Videotron has been allowing its subscribers to permanently roam on Bell’s network without permission. In its application for leave to appeal, Videotron argued that the court’s refusal to disclose Bell’s redacted information causes “irreparable harm in the gathering of evidence,” considering the rest of the document’s relevance to the case. The appeal court upheld the previous determination that the information in question is sensitive to Bell’s business, does not concern Videotron’s users, does not prevent a full understanding of the document provided, and is irrelevant to the proceeding. According to a transcript of the April court hearing, Videotron wanted the redacted information disclosed because it lacks the information needed to take a position, saying “we have no information on… the threshold applicable by Bell to determine permanent roaming on the part of Videotron.” To which Bell responded, “We’ve said from the beginning, Madam Justice, both in the motion… in the hearing of the motion to dismiss, Videotron told the CRTC, it’s in the documents, that they were applying a 50 per cent threshold for three months…” “And what we’re saying is that it hasn’t been applied. They have not taken the appropriate measures, as recognized by the CRTC,” added Bell’s lawyer, “what is redacted... has no connection at all, in any way, with the threshold of acceptable roaming. That’s not the point. It’s not the information that is redacted.” “There can be no question of allowing the appeal on this ground, since it is doomed to failure,” stated Mainville. Videotron also argued that judge Katheryne A. Desfossés, who has been presiding over the suit, prohibited it from continuing its “examination for discovery,” or out-of-court questioning, of Bell executive Nauby Jacob, which judges are not allowed to do. The court of appeal rejected this claim, explaining that Videotron was not barred from questioning Jacob. Instead, the judge set the conditions for the examination, allowing further questioning “with respect to the quantum of damages only,” “once an expert opinion from Bell has been produced,” and for a max of two hours on a date when the court is available. “Videotron does not convince me that Justice Desfossés’ decision appears contrary to the guiding principles of the procedure,” said Mainville. While mandated wholesale roaming only allows the users of other companies to access incumbents’ networks occasionally and not permanently, the CRTC has not established a threshold for what that means, expecting carriers to negotiate among themselves. Bell had first accused a “significant” number of Videotron subscribers — the exact number was redacted from the public version of the filing — of permanent roaming on its network, in a Part 1 filing to the CRTC back in May 2019. In a decision on Feb. 5, 2020, the CRTC found that Videotron did violate Bell’s tariff in two cases: involving customers of its flanker brand Fizz and customers affected by a technical issue preventing them from receiving a notification regarding their usage. “However, Videotron demonstrated an effective application of certain reasonable measures to ensure that end-users were not permanently roaming. No proof was submitted that Videotron was reselling wireless services through roaming on the Bell Mobility network,” the decision said. The CRTC ordered Bell to maintain its wholesale roaming services provided to Videotron and encouraged the two to play nice and agree on an acceptable level of occasional roaming. They have yet to come to an agreement. – Reporting by Phalen Tynes-MacDonald at pcreed@thewirereport.ca and editing by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca.

Quebec court denies Videotron’s appeal in Bell lawsuit

Brief | August 23, 2023

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Quebec court denies Videotron’s appeal in Bell lawsuit

Brief | August 23, 2023

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Iristel battle over millions in denied tax credits best suited for Tax Court, Supreme Court rules

CMPA accuses Corus of non-compliance, seeks appeal of regulatory relief

Class action suit against SiriusXM announced following Competition Bureau fine

Bell appeal case against CRTC fibre access decision underway

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us