Appeals court upholds Competition Tribunal’s ruling against Rogers’ amendments in data plan dispute

Internal deliberation at the Competition Bureau during its investigation into Rogers Communication Inc.’s Infinite wireless plans is irrelevant to determining whether the company is engaged in anticompetitive conduct, the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled. In a decision released April 2, the court dismissed an appeal by Rogers challenging the Competition Tribunal’s decision not to allow the company to amend its defence against the bureau’s allegations that the phone plans are misleading because after a certain data cap speeds are significantly reduced, contradicting the promise of “unlimited” data. The proceeding at the tribunal was launched late last year, following an investigation by the competition watchdog. A final ruling has yet to be made. According to the company’s notice of appeal, before launching its Infinite plans in June 2019, Rogers reached out to the commissioner to describe the plans’ features and offered to meet, but the commissioner took no action. During the discovery process, Rogers said it learned the commissioner had conducted assessments in 2020 and 2021 regarding “unlimited” data plans offered by various carriers, including Rogers. That assessment concluded the representations (advertisements) were not false or misleading, and the bureau chose not to take any enforcement action at the time. Based on this discovery, Rogers sought leave to amend its defence to include these facts, arguing they were relevant to any potential penalty determined by the tribunal, and would counter the bureau’s argument that Rogers’ decision to go through with the representations despite knowing the risks should be an aggravating factor. The tribunal refused. “At first blush, Rogers’ argument is compelling. Reflection, however, teaches otherwise,” wrote Justice Donald J. Rennie in the court’s decision. The judge pointed to the Competition Act as the guiding light for relevancy, saying it “frames the scope and focus of the proceedings before the Tribunal.” All the relevant factors set out by the act “focus on Rogers’ conduct and its effect on the primary objective of the legislation—the competitiveness of the Canadian economy,” he stated. “What transpired within the Bureau does not change Rogers’ conduct, nor does it change whether consumers were, in fact misled. What transpired within the Bureau is also irrelevant to the key statutory criteria in assessing penalties,” concluded Rennie. “The Bureau’s internal deliberations have no bearing on the extent of consumer losses and the injury to competition.” The court also rejected the idea that the notices Rogers shared with the competition commissioner ahead of launching the plans should be a mitigating factor and lessen any potential penalties. “Great mischief could ensue if the commissioner’s failure to respond to unsolicited notices” counted as granting permission or a reduced penalty, wrote the judge. “There is a danger... that opening this line of inquiry risks that the trial becomes a trial of the Commissioner’s investigation, diverting the focus away from the singular issue that Parliament has mandated the Tribunal to decide—whether the conduct constitutes a deceptive marketing practice.” phalentm@thewirereport.ca

Appeals court upholds Competition Tribunal’s ruling against Rogers’ amendments in data plan dispute

Court |
By Phalen Tynes-MacDonald
|April 9, 2026

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

Appeals court upholds Competition Tribunal’s ruling against Rogers’ amendments in data plan dispute

Court | By Phalen Tynes-MacDonald |April 9, 2026

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Canadian internet companies say their livelihood is dependent on changes to the Copyright Act — but Ottawa hasn’t taken action

Google appeals dismissal of Charter challenge in ad market monopoly case at Competition Tribunal

Appeals court dismisses Rogers challenge of CRTC standstill ruling in Corus channel dispute

Related Stories

The ‘obvious candidate’: Jeanne Pratt favoured by lawyers, academics to take over as competition commissioner

Ex-Competition Bureau head Matthew Boswell joins Norton Rose Fulbright

U.S. tech trade group warns Canada’s draft merger guidelines risk deterring innovation, startup acquisitions

Rogers v. Rogers a tour de force for Toronto actor Tom Rooney

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Court |
By Phalen Tynes-MacDonald
|April 9, 2026