Court File No. FEDERAL COURT of APPEAL BETWEEN: BELL CANADA, BELL MOBILITY INC., MTS INC., NORTHERNTEL, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Court File No. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL B E T W E E N: BELL CANADA, BELL MOBILITY INC., MTS INC., NORTHERNTEL, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS PARTNERSHIP, SASKATCHEWAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS, TÉLÉBEC, SOCIÉTÉ EN COMMANDITE and TELUS COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY Applicants - and - AMTELECOM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BRAGG COMMUNICATIONS INC., DATA & AUDIO-VISUAL ENTERPRISES WIRELESS INC., GLOBALIVE WIRELESS MANAGEMENT CORP., HAY COMMUNICATIONS CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED, HURON TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED, MORNINGTON COMMUNICATIONS CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED, NEXICOM MOBILITY INC., NORTHWESTEL INC., PEOPLE’S TEL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PUBLIC MOBILE INC., QUADRO COMMUNICATIONS CO-OPERATIVE INC., QUEBECOR MEDIA INC., SOGETEL MOBILITÉ INC., THUNDER BAY TELEPHONE, VAXINATION INFORMATIQUE, CONSUMERS’ COUNCIL OF CANADA, DIVERSITYCANADA FOUNDATION, MEDIA ACCESS CANADA, MOUVEMENT PERSONNE D’ABORD DU QUÉBEC, PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY CENTRE, CONSUMERS’ ASSOCIATION OF CANADA, COUNCIL OF SENIOR CITIZENS’ ORGANIZATIONS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, OPENMEDIA.CA, SERVICE DE PROTECTION ET D’INFORMATION DU CONSOMMATEUR, UNION DES CONSOMMATEURS, CANADIAN WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION, COMMISSIONER FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES INC., COMPETITION BUREAU OF CANADA, GLENN THIBEAULT, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA, GOVERNMENT OF MANITOBA, GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC, GOVERNMENT OF YUKON, OFFICE OF THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OF CANADA, CATHERINE MIDDLETON, TAMARA SHEPHERD, LESLIE REGAN SHADE, KIM SAWCHUK, BARBARA CROW, SHAW TELECOM INC., TERRY DUNCAN, GLENN FULLERTON, TANA GUINDEBA, NASIR KHAN, MICHAEL LANCIONE, ALLAN MUNRO, FREDERICK A. NAKOS, RAINER SCHOENEN and DANIEL SOKOLOV Respondents MOTION RECORD (Motion for leave to appeal, to expedite, to authorize service by email and to dispense with further service) TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Tab Pages 1. Notice of Motion 1 - 8 Schedule A - Proposed timetable 9 Schedule B – Email distribution list (respondents only) 10-11 2. Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2013-271 – The Wireless Code 12 - 77 Appendix 1 – Wireless Code 78 - 89 3. Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-556 90 - 98 4. Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2012-557 99 - 111 5. Affidavit of John Meldrum 112 - 118 Exhibit A - Letter from CWTA to CRTC 119 - 121 Exhibit B - Letter from CRTC staff to CWTA 122 - 125 Exhibit C - Printout from CRTC Twitter account 126 - 128 Exhibit D - Chart listing parties to the Wireless Code proceeding and 129 - 141 their email addresses 6. Applicants' Memorandum of Fact and Law 142 - 166 TAB 1 15633570.1 1 Court File No. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL B E T W E E N: BELL CANADA, BELL MOBILITY INC., MTS INC., NORTHERNTEL, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS PARTNERSHIP, SASKATCHEWAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS, TÉLÉBEC, SOCIÉTÉ EN COMMANDITE and TELUS COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY Applicants - and - AMTELECOM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BRAGG COMMUNICATIONS INC., DATA & AUDIO-VISUAL ENTERPRISES WIRELESS INC., GLOBALIVE WIRELESS MANAGEMENT CORP., HAY COMMUNICATIONS CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED, HURON TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED, MORNINGTON COMMUNICATIONS CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED, NEXICOM MOBILITY INC., NORTHWESTEL INC., PEOPLE’S TEL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PUBLIC MOBILE INC., QUADRO COMMUNICATIONS CO-OPERATIVE INC., QUEBECOR MEDIA INC., SOGETEL MOBILITÉ INC., THUNDER BAY TELEPHONE, VAXINATION INFORMATIQUE, CONSUMERS’ COUNCIL OF CANADA, DIVERSITYCANADA FOUNDATION, MEDIA ACCESS CANADA, MOUVEMENT PERSONNE D’ABORD DU QUÉBEC, PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY CENTRE, CONSUMERS’ ASSOCIATION OF CANADA, COUNCIL OF SENIOR CITIZENS’ ORGANIZATIONS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, OPENMEDIA.CA, SERVICE DE PROTECTION ET D’INFORMATION DU CONSOMMATEUR, UNION DES CONSOMMATEURS, CANADIAN WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION, COMMISSIONER FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES INC., COMPETITION BUREAU OF CANADA, GLENN THIBEAULT, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA, GOVERNMENT OF MANITOBA, GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC, GOVERNMENT OF YUKON, OFFICE OF THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OF CANADA, CATHERINE MIDDLETON, TAMARA SHEPHERD, LESLIE REGAN SHADE, KIM SAWCHUK, BARBARA CROW, SHAW TELECOM INC., TERRY DUNCAN, GLENN FULLERTON, TANA GUINDEBA, NASIR KHAN, MICHAEL LANCIONE, ALLAN MUNRO, FREDERICK A. NAKOS, RAINER SCHOENEN and DANIEL SOKOLOV Respondents NOTICE OF MOTION (Motion for leave to appeal, to expedite, to authorize service by email and to dispense with further service) TAKE NOTICE THAT the applicants will make a motion in writing to the Court under Rules 352 and 369 of the Federal Courts Rules. 2 - 2 - THE MOTION IS FOR an order (a) granting leave to appeal to this Court from Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2013-271, issued by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) on 3 June 2013, establishing the Wireless Code (the “Wireless Code decision”), insofar as it purports to give the Wireless Code retrospective application to wireless service contracts entered into between wireless service providers and their customers before the Wireless Code comes into force; (b) expediting the disposition of this motion in writing and, if leave to appeal is granted, expediting the hearing of the appeal by setting it down for the earliest date available to the Court; (c) if the relief requested in paragraphs (a) and (b) is granted, fixing the time for completion of the steps in the appeal in accordance with the timetable at Schedule A; (d) directing that the respondents to this motion, and if leave to appeal is granted, to the appeal, be the persons and entities listed as respondents in the style of cause to this notice of motion; (e) validating service of the motion record on the respondents by email at the addresses listed at Schedule B to the notice of motion and on the other parties to the CRTC’s Proceeding to establish a mandatory code for mobile wireless devices, Telecom Notice of Consultation 2012-557, as amended by Telecom Notices of Consultation 2012-557-1, 2012-557-2, 2012-557-3, 2012-557-4 and 2012-557-5 (the “Wireless Code proceeding”) by email at the addresses listed at Exhibit D to the Meldrum affidavit; (f) if leave to appeal is granted, authorizing service of the notice of appeal on the respondents by email at the addresses listed at Schedule B to the notice of motion and on the other parties to the Wireless Code proceeding by email at the addresses listed at Exhibit D to the Meldrum affidavit; (g) dispensing with service of the motion record, and if leave to appeal is granted, of the notice of appeal, on any person or entity other than the CRTC, the Attorney 3 - 3 - General of Canada and the persons and entities listed in Exhibit D to the Meldrum affidavit who provided their email address to the CRTC; (h) granting the applicants their costs of this motion; and (i) granting such further relief as this Court may deem just. THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE The applicants’ participation before the CRTC (a) The applicants are wireless service providers. They were parties in the Wireless Code proceeding. The Wireless Code (b) The Wireless Code sets out mandatory requirements applicable to most wireless service contracts. (c) These include the requirements that an early cancellation fee must not exceed the value of the device subsidy received by the customer, and that the early cancellation fee be amortized over a maximum of two years such that the early cancellation fee after two years will be zero. In effect, therefore, under the Wireless Code customers may terminate their wireless service contracts after two years without paying any cancellation fee. Coming into force of the Wireless Code (d) The Wireless Code decision provides that: (i) “all aspects of the Wireless Code will take effect on 2 December 2013”; and (ii) “the Wireless Code should apply to all contracts, no matter when they were entered into, by no later than 3 June 2015.” (e) The CRTC has, through its staff, taken inconsistent positions as to whether the Wireless Code applies on a mandatory basis to contracts entered into before 2 December 2013. 4 - 4 - Retrospective application to pre-existing contracts (a) If the Wireless Code decision applies to all contracts by 3 June 2015, then any contract that was entered into before 2 December 2013 and that terminates after 3 June 2015 will be subject to the Wireless Code. (b) The effect of the application of the Wireless Code to pre-existing contracts would be to override significant terms of these pre-existing contracts. (c) For example, the majority of wireless service contracts that are entered into by customers have fixed terms of three years. The pricing of services provided under these contracts typically incorporates a subsidy for the provision of a mobile phone device. Under most contracts currently offered by wireless service providers, the device subsidy is forgiven over the term of the contract. In most cases, wireless service providers recover device subsidies either through monthly payments made under fixed-term contracts or through early cancellation fees. (d) The retrospective application of the Wireless Code decision to pre-existing contracts, and in particular the requirements that early cancellation fees be limited to the amount of any unpaid device subsidy and that a device subsidy be amortized over a maximum of two years, means that wireless service providers may not be able to recover the full cost of device subsidies provided to customers