Quebec court authorizes class-action against Bell’s Télébec, Câblevision

A Superior Court of Quebec judge has authorized a class-action lawsuit against BCE Inc.’s Télébec or Câblevision du Nord du Québec for imposing changes of rates which the plaintiff claims are unenforceable, in a French-language decision issued by Justice Sylvain Lussier on Feb. 3. Plaintiff Michelle Pigeon asked the court for authorization to institute a class action on behalf of "all natural persons (except merchants who entered into a contract for the purposes of their business)” and “all legal persons whose monthly rates for landline telephony, internet and television service were unilaterally modified” by Télébec or Câblevision “and who have been notified of such changes in one or more monthly invoices, at some time since December 12, 2015.” Pigeon has been a Télébec landline customer since 1994 and has used their internet services since 2005. She has no legal dealings with Câblevision. Télébec provides landline phone and internet services to approximately 150,000 residential and business customers primarily in the Quebec regions of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Côte-Nord, Gaspésie, Laurentians, Mauricie, Montérégie and Northern Quebec. It is also the main shareholder of Câblevision, which offers television and internet services to approximately 25,000 customers in six regions of Quebec. According to the court documents, Pigeon maintains that changes to the rates imposed by the defendants are unenforceable against the members of the class-action lawsuit because they are in contravention of article 11.2 of Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act and several articles of the Civil Code of Quebec. Article 11.2 of the Consumer Protection Act stipulates that any modification to a consumer contract is prohibited unless the parts of the consumer contract that may be amended are stipulated up front, a 30-day written notice must be provided for, the consumer may refuse the modification and cancel the contract without cost. According to the court documents, the defendants did not send a written notice “drawn up clearly and legibly, containing exclusively the information prescribed by article 11.2” nor did they notify their subscribers of the rate changes, having instead hidden the notice in their monthly invoices. “The wording of the modification clauses would not allow the subscriber to understand in a reasonably determined or determinable way how the defendants reserve the right to modify the rates in accordance with articles 1373, 1374 and 1437 ,” according to the documents. The territory for which Télébec offers its services is largely regulated by the CRTC “given the lack of competition in these regions,” according to the court documents. The provision of telecommunications services in restricted areas are determined by tariffs filed with, and approved by, the CRTC, however, on Sept. 27, 2007, the Mont-Laurier region was deregulated by the commission, according to the court documents. “Following this deregulation, Télébec sent Pigeon a notice of change to the regulation of residential local telephony service, to which were attached Télébec's Unregulated Services Terms dated Dec. 14, 2007, which Télébec considers to apply as of that time,” according to the court documents. “Pigeon maintains that the 2011 terms and conditions, which she found on the internet, apply to her request. The court considers that, initially, the 2007 terms and conditions apply to the contractual relationship with Pigeon. On the other hand, the tribunal will have to ask itself the question of the applicability of the terms and conditions of the terms of service which change over time,” Lussier, who is overseeing another class-action lawsuit against Télébec, wrote. According to the court, on Dec. 13, 2015, Télébec informed Pigeon that the monthly rate for her value plan (including both services) would increase by $4 as of Feb. 1, 2016 when her monthly bill was sent. Télébec argues that the notice complies with the 2007 terms and submitted that the notice is not concealed in the invoice with any other type of information, nor is it written in fine print or in an incomprehensible language, contrary to Pigeon's claims. Pigeon is looking to have the two companies pay punitive damages, which is permitted under the Consumer Protection Act. – Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Paul Park at ppark@thewirereport.ca

Quebec court authorizes class-action against Bell’s Télébec, Câblevision

News | February 9, 2022

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 authorizes class-action against Bell’s Télébec, Câblevision

News | February 9, 2022

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telus sales people promoting illegal TV pirating service to entice customers, Bell alleges

Telus accuses Bell, Rogers of hindering television rollout at CRTC hearing

Iristel arguments in interconnection fight with Bell, Northwestel dismissed again by CRTC

Bell says broadcasters, streamers should pay into fund for mandatory services

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us