Canada: Supreme Court Rules On Arbitration Of Consumer Claims: Reality Or Myth?

Last Updated: May 22 2011
Article by Michael Schafler


On March 18 2011 the Supreme Court released its decision in Seidel v TELUS Communications Inc.1 Ms Seidel had commenced an intended class action in the British Columbia Supreme Court notwithstanding the following arbitration clause in her contract with TELUS:

"15. ARBITRATION: Any claim, dispute or controversy (whether in contract or tort, pursuant to statute or regulation, or otherwise and whether pre-existing, present or future - except for the collection from you of any amount by TELUS Mobility) arising out of or relating to: (a) this agreement; (b) a phone or the service; (c) oral or written statements, or advertisements or promotions relating to this agreement or to a product or service; or (d) the relationships which result from this agreement (including relationships with third parties who are not parties to this agreement), (each, a "Claim") will be referred to and determined by private and confidential mediation before a single mediator chosen by the parties and at their joint cost. Should the parties after mediation in good faith fail to reach a settlement, the issue between them shall then be determined by private, confidential and binding arbitration by the same person originally chosen as mediator. Either party may commence court proceedings to enforce the arbitration result when an arbitration decision shall have been rendered and thirty (30) days have passed from the date of such decision. By so agreeing, you waive any right you may have to commence or participate in any class action against TELUS Mobility related to any Claim and, where applicable, you hereby agree to opt out of any class proceeding against TELUS Mobility otherwise commenced."

Seidel's complaint was essentially that TELUS unlawfully charges its customers for incoming calls based on when the caller connects to TELUS's network, but before the customer answers the call. Her claims (for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages) were apparently based on the British Columbia Trade Practice Act2 and Sections 171 and 172 of the British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.3 The British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act contains the following provision, which was central to the appeal: "3. Any waiver or release by a person of the person's rights, benefits or protections under this Act is void except to the extent that the waiver or release is expressly permitted by this Act."

In addition, Section 15 of the Commercial Arbitration Act4 was in issue:

"15. (1) If a party to an arbitration agreement commences legal proceedings in a court against another party to the agreement in respect of a matter agreed to be submitted to arbitration, a party to the legal proceedings may apply, before or after entering an appearance and before delivery of any pleadings or taking any other step in the proceedings, to that court to stay the legal proceedings.

(2) In an application under subsection (1), the court must make an order staying the legal proceedings unless it determines that the arbitration agreement is void, inoperative or incapable of being performed."

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, overturning the judge of first instance, stayed Seidel's action in favour of arbitration. In doing so, that court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Dell Computer Corp v Union des consommateurs,5 although dealing with the relationship between arbitration clauses and class actions under the Civil Code of Quebec, was also applicable to the statutory regime in British Columbia (which is similar to that of Quebec), and thus binding.

The only issue remaining before the Supreme Court was whether Seidel's claims under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act had been properly stayed or whether Section 3 of the act created an exception to the mandatory language of Sections 15(1) and (2) of the Commercial Arbitration Act.


Competence-competence principle

In a split five-to-four decision, the court ruled that Section 3 of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act did in fact create such an exception. However, the language employed throughout the dissenting reasons revealed a deep rift in the court as to the role of arbitration proceedings in Canada's present justice system: "In our view, [the majority's] interpretation represents an inexplicable throwback to a time when courts monopolized decision making and arbitrators were treated as second-class adjudicators."6

There was no disagreement that the competence-competence principle enunciated in Dell had general application.7 It is now beyond doubt in Canada that an express legislative direction that arbitrators are to consider the scope of their own jurisdiction, coupled with the use of language similar to that found in the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the 1985 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, amounts to incorporation of the competence-competence principle.

In such circumstances, in the absence of a challenge to the arbitrator's jurisdiction based solely on a question of law (or one of mixed fact and law requiring only superficial consideration of the evidence in the record), the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement to which legislation such as the Commercial Arbitration Act applies must be considered first by the arbitrator, and the court should grant the stay. In this case all of the Supreme Court judges agreed that the British Columbia Court of Appeal had properly accepted and endorsed this approach. However, the court was divided as to the correct outcome of that approach on the facts of this case.

The effect of Section 3 of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act

It is readily apparent from how the majority and the dissent respectively characterised the core issue that there existed a schism about the role of arbitration in today's justice system. Justice Binnie, for the majority, framed the issue as one of "access to justice", noting that "private arbitral justice, because of its contractual origins, is necessarily limited".8

The dissenting opinion, penned by Justices LeBel and Deschamps, focused not on access to justice simpliciter, but rather whether access to justice must mean "access to a judge":

"In an effort to promote and improve access to justice, and to make more efficient use of scarce judicial resources, legislatures have adopted new procedural vehicles designed to modify or provide alternatives to the traditional court action. These alternatives include class actions and arbitration, both of which have been endorsed by this Court. Consumers in British Columbia, depending on the contractual arrangements they make, already have access to either arbitration or the courts to resolve their disputes. In this case, the consumer's contract provides that in the event of a dispute, the exclusive adjudicative forum is arbitration. This is a forum our courts have long accepted as an efficient and effective access to justice mechanism. Thus, the question in this case is instead whether access to justice means - and requires - access to a judge."9

Thus framed, the issues left no doubt about the outcome. Binnie concluded that Section 3 of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act should be interpreted to mean "that to the extent the arbitration clause purports to take away a right, benefit or protection conferred by the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, it will be invalid".10 Embedded in this reasoning is the notion that it is a right, benefit or protection under the act to assert a consumer complaint in the courts. The corollary is that being required to assert the same complaint before an arbitral tribunal is tantamount to an impairment of such right, benefit or protection. As Binnie noted:

"The text of the statute favours Ms. Seidel's interpretation. The operative language of s. 3 ('rights, benefits or protections') is all-encompassing. TELUS argues (and my colleagues LeBel and Deschamps JJ. agree, at para. 136) that the s. 172 right to 'bring an action in Supreme Court' is merely procedural. With respect, this characterization is of no assistance to TELUS. Whether procedural or substantive, it is indubitably a 'righ[t]' or 'benefi[t]' conferred by the statute. If the legislature had intended to draw distinctions between procedural and substantive 'rights, benefits or protections' in s. 3 of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, it could easily have done so, but it chose not to. Ms. Seidel possesses a statutory 'right' to take her complaint to the Supreme Court. My colleagues LeBel and Deschamps JJ. read down the expression 'rights, benefits or protections' to exclude procedural rights. I can find no justification for modifying the legislation in this way."11

Binnie offered up two justifications for his approach:

  • In the consumer context, declarations and injunctions (remedies provided for under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act) are the most efficient remedies in terms of protection of consumers' interests and the deterrence of wrongful suppliers conduct;12 and
  • By contrast, arbitrations are "private and confidential" and lack precedential value, and an order made by an arbitrator would not bind third parties.13

As set out in the introduction above, the dissenting judges were unusually critical of Binnie's approach. LeBel and Deschamps first carefully reviewed Canadian jurisprudence on arbitration, concluding that until the late 1980s, Canadian courts had been openly hostile towards arbitration. That hostility eventually gave way to a new approach, to the effect that where a legislature intends to exclude arbitration as a vehicle for resolving a particular category of legal disputes, it must do so explicitly.14

Next, they explained that the Commercial Arbitration Act was influenced by the UNCITRAL Model Law, with the result that the reasoning in Dell applied.15 As to the proper interpretation of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, LeBel and Deschamps reasoned that Section 3 was intended to protect substantive rights - however, in what forum these rights are to be dealt with is a procedural matter:

"An arbitrator can grant the remedies contemplated in s. 172 of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act against TELUS. The arbitration agreement between Ms. Seidel and TELUS does not therefore constitute an improper waiver of Ms. Seidel's rights, benefits or protections for the purposes of s. 3 of that Act. Consequently, the act, in its current form, does not provide a court considering a stay application under s. 15 of the Commercial Arbitration Act with a reason for refusing to grant it. Section 3 of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act does not prohibit agreements under which consumer disputes are to be submitted to arbitration or that otherwise limit the possibility of having a proceeding certified as a class proceeding, since s. 172 of the act merely identifies the procedural forum in which an action with respect to the rights, benefits and protections provided for in s. 172 may be brought in the public court system. However, s. 172 does not explicitly exclude alternate fora, such as an arbitration tribunal from acquiring jurisdiction."


The degree of separation between the majority and the dissent is rather surprising. Deference to arbitration has, after all, become a hallmark of Canada's justice system. What might explain the different approaches? Could it be that the majority felt obliged to draw a line in the sand? Was TELUS really trying to avoid publicity by insisting on private arbitration? This would seem inconceivable, given that the arbitral award is enforceable in the courts, as the dissent pointed out. This decision, it would appear, raises more questions than it answers. However, what is clear is that arbitration in Canada will continue to thrive, as it has in the past 20 years or so; and that as it stands, the right to choose a dispute resolution forum appears to be substantive (or at least something more than procedural only). Therefore, in the absence of the clearest of legislative languages, a consumer cannot be held to his or her bargain to submit a claim to arbitration. It should be noted that Quebec, Ontario and Alberta have enacted legislation that renders class action waiver clauses such as the one in issue in TELUS inoperative.16


1. Seidel v TELUS Communications Inc, 2011 SCC 15.

2. RSBC 1996, c 457.

3. SBC 2004, c 2.

4. RSBC 1996, c 55.

5. 2007 SCC 34.

6. Seidel v TELUS Communications Inc, 2011 SCC 15, para 55.

7. Ibid, para 29 and 89-121.

8. Ibid, paras 7 and 22.

9. Ibid, para 52.

10. Ibid, para 31.

11. Ibid, para 33.

12. Ibid, para 35.

13. Ibid, paras 35, 38-39.

14. Ibid, paras 89-121, esp para 103.

15. Ibid, paras 109-121, esp para 109-110.

16. Ibid, paras 173-175.

About Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC)

FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices located in the country's key business centres. We focus on providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on our clients' needs. Visit:

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
14 Nov 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada

Save the date. It’s that time of the year to mark your calendars for the opportunity to earn the rest of your CPD credits all in one day!

27 Nov 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada

Dentons is pleased to sponsor the Global Property Market Forum taking place November 27, 2018 in Toronto.

30 Nov 2018, Conference, Toronto, Canada

Dentons is proud to be the presenting sponsor for Autonomous Vehicle P3s: Visions of the Future at this year’s CCPPP conference in Toronto on Nov 5-6, 2018.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions