Court
(Graphic by Joey Sabourin/Hill Times Publishing)
Appeals court dismisses Rogers’ challenge against CRTC’s choice of Quebecor MVNO rates
Court | | May 29, 2025
The Federal Court of Appeal threw out Rogers Communications Inc.’s attempt to overturn a CRTC decision which chose Quebecor Inc.’s wholesale access rates over its own during final offer arbitration.
The court upheld the CRTC’s decision in a ruling issued Wednesday, May 28, after hearing arguments from the parties. It found that Rogers was not denied procedural fairness and that there were no errors in the CRTC’s selection of Quebecor’s proposed rates.
The two companies entered final offer arbitration (FOA) to resolve a dispute over the price Quebecor would have to pay to access Rogers’ wireless facilities as part of a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) access agreement. In July 2023, the CRTC chose Quebecor’s offer, concluding that it would better maintain “the ability and incentives for both parties to invest while providing it with the ability to expand into new geographic areas and grant it more pricing flexibility to better discipline rates in the retail market for the benefit of all end-users.”
Rogers appealed the decision, accusing the CRTC of denying Rogers’ rights to “procedural fairness and natural justice.”
Rogers argued that the CRTC made adjustments to its costing data without providing details or allowing Rogers to comment. The court found this did not breach fairness, noting these adjustments were just “one factor among others to explain the CRTC’s choice.”
No unexpected methodology was used and Rogers was not denied the right to know the case it had to meet.
“Rogers was able to make its submissions, which the CRTC considered. The CRTC was simply unconvinced,” the court wrote in its decision.
Rogers also argued that the CRTC unfairly refused to allow its counsel and experts to see some confidential information filed by Quebecor to make further submissions. The court disagreed, citing the CRTC’s justified concerns about potential delays, Rogers’ request not fitting the applicable confidentiality rules, and the lack of disclosure not hindering Rogers’ ability to respond.
“Both sides agreed to the FOA process and thereby agreed that the confidentiality/disclosure regime applicable thereto was fair,” the court stated. “Rogers effectively argues before this court that the CRTC was obliged to make an exception to the confidentiality/disclosure regime. We are not convinced that Rogers’ position is justified in the present circumstances.”
Additionally, Rogers claimed it was unfair for the CRTC to refuse to order Quebecor to produce a document it had previously filed confidentially with the Competition Tribunal. The court dismissed this point, stating that the CRTC’s practice does not typically allow parties to seek discovery and Rogers did not argue for an exception, adding that the CRTC was also concerned about delays.
Rogers also took issue with the CRTC’s statement in its decision that rates “may not provide an immediate-term return on investment” or might “require an otherwise profitable enterprise to incur a modest or temporary loss in one line of business while other lines remain profitable.” The company argued that this does not align with the requirement for just and reasonable rates.
Rogers’ arguments focused on its ability to earn a return in the short term, the court found, “and do not address the CRTC’s apparent view that its decision permitted Rogers a fair return over the long term.”
Rogers did not immediately respond to The Wire Report’s request for comment.
