Telus Communications Inc. v. Federation of Canadian Municipalities
TELUS COMMUNICATIONS INC.
FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES
Law Firm / Organization
Sicotte Guilbault
BELL MOBILITY INC.
Law Firm / Organization
McCarthy Tétrault LLP
ELECTRICITY CANADA
Law Firm / Organization
Goodmans LLP
HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Freya Zaltz

ICE WIRELESS INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Tacit Law
BRAGG COMMUNICATIONS INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Woods S.E.N.C.R.L
COGECO COMMUNICATIONS INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Woods S.E.N.C.R.L
QUÉBECOR MÉDIA INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Woods S.E.N.C.R.L
VIDÉOTRON LTD.
Law Firm / Organization
Woods S.E.N.C.R.L
XPLORE INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Woods S.E.N.C.R.L
ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS CANADA INC.

Key Points:

  • Background: The CRTC conducted a review of the regulatory framework for mobile wireless services, focusing on 5G networks. This review resulted in Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2021-130, which addressed retail competition, wholesale services, and future infrastructure deployment.

  • Appeal Issues:

    1. Access Issue: Whether wireless infrastructure is excluded from the Telecommunications Act’s regulatory scheme for access to highways and public places.
    2. Roaming Issue: Whether the CRTC can mandate national carriers to provide seamless roaming.
  • CRTC Decision:

    • Interpreted "transmission line" in the Telecommunications Act as referring to physical wires and cables, not wireless infrastructure.
    • Mandated seamless roaming, considering it beneficial for competition and consumer service.
  • Federal Court of Appeal Findings:

    • Access Issue: Upheld the CRTC's interpretation, confirming that "transmission line" does not include wireless infrastructure and the CRTC lacks jurisdiction over municipal access disputes for wireless facilities.
    • Roaming Issue: Affirmed the CRTC's authority to mandate seamless roaming, finding it within their power to impose service conditions and consistent with policy objectives.
    • No financial terms specified.
Federal Court of Appeal
A-217-21
Media & communications law
Respondent