Canada: B.C. Supreme Court Denies Certification In Action Against Large Canadian Wireless Service Providers

In Ileman v. Rogers Communications Inc., Justice Weatherill of the Supreme Court of British Columbia refused to certify a putative class action in connection with monthly system access fees charged and collected by various Canadian wireless service providers (the Defendants).

The Court held that one of the claims made by the proposed Representative Plaintiff (the Plaintiff) pursuant to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA), as well as the Plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment and monies had and received, did not disclose a cause of action. With respect to the few claims that were found to disclose a cause of action, Weatherill J. concluded that the proposed class definition presented an insurmountable hurdle to certification and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for resolving those claims.


Beginning in July 1985, the federal Department of Communications (DOC) required individual cell phone users to apply for a radio license and pay annual radio license fees for access to the radio frequency spectrum. At this time, some or all of the Defendants (or their corporate predecessors) began collecting annual license fees from their customers on behalf of the DOC.

In 1987, the DOC eliminated the requirement that individual cell phone users purchase radio licenses. Instead, the DOC began selling spectrum licenses to cellular service providers, including the Defendants and/or their corporate predecessors. The Defendants commenced the practice of charging system licensing (or equivalent) fees to their cellular customers, shown as a separate item on their monthly invoices. The wording and terms of the various agreements used by the Defendants changed from time-to-time; however, they all clearly identified the customer's obligation to pay a monthly "system access fee".

Having paid a system access fee of $6.95 per month ever since he contracted with one of the Defendant service providers for wireless cellular phone services in 1998, the Plaintiff commenced the proposed class action on his own behalf and on behalf of the putative class who purchased cell phone services from the Defendants and who were charged a monthly system access fee. His claim was not about the legality of charging a system access fee - the contracts signed by customers plainly gave the Defendants the right to do so. Rather, his claim was about how the fee was described and presented in the Defendants' invoices to customers.

Causes of Action

Against all of the Defendants, the Plaintiff made the allegation that they had engaged in "deceptive acts and practices" contrary to s.5 of the BPCPA.  Against certain other of the Defendants, the Plaintiff alleged that: (1) they had been unjustly enriched by the collection of system access fees without any authority to do so; and (2) the system access fees were monies had and received by the Defendants to the use of the Plaintiff and putative class members. Weatherill J. examined each of these proposed causes of action in detail in his analysis of whether the pleadings disclosed a cause of action for the purposes of satisfying s. 4(1) of the British Columbia Class Proceedings Act (CPA).

The Plaintiff's Claim Pursuant to the BPCPA

Section 5 of the BPCPA provides as follows: "A supplier must not commit or engage in a deceptive act or practice in respect of a consumer transaction." The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants breached s. 5 in two ways. First, the Plaintiff alleged that the phrase "system access fee" had the capability, tendency or effect of deceiving or misleading a consumer into believing that the monies were either being remitted to the government as a tax, or used to recover monies that were being remitted to the government when, in fact, the fees were being used by the Defendants, at least in part, as general revenue (Claim One). Second, the Plaintiff alleged that the phrase "system access fee" was a deceptive act or practice when viewed objectively and in the context of historical facts (Claim Two).

With respect to Claim One, Weatherill J. agreed with the Defendants that there was nothing in the words "system access fee" to suggest that the fee will be remitted to the government as a tax, levy or license fee; however, His Lordship found that, objectively, the phrase "system access fee" had the capability of leading consumers to believe that the entirety of the fee was required to offset the Defendants' costs paid to the government for their respective spectrum licenses. To the extent the fees were used by the Defendants for such an offset there was nothing deceptive, but to the extent such fees were used by the Defendants for other purposes, His Lordship could not conclude that it was "plain and obvious that the claim will not succeed."

As for Claim Two, Weatherill J. reasoned that by framing the claim so that the alleged deception of the public arises only in the context of historical facts, the Plaintiff made his knowledge (and that of the members of the putative class) of the historical facts a necessary element of his cause of action. Because there was no plea that either the Plaintiff or the members of the putative class were aware of the historical facts, His Lordship found that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action. Weatherill J. noted that the Plaintiff attempted to selectively choose from what occurred historically and this would undoubtedly fail to withstand scrutiny at the common issues trial stage if the action was to be certified as a class proceeding.

The Plaintiff's claims for relief under the BPCPA in the form of a declaration that the Defendants' conduct contravenes the BPCPA, and a permanent injunction restraining that conduct, were held to disclose a cause of action. However, Weatherill J. held that the remedy claimed under section 172(3) of the BPCPA for the restoration to putative class members of all monies which the Defendants may have acquired in contravention of the BPCPA did not disclose a cause of action and was bound to fail. Drawing on the recent Court of Appeal decision in Wakelam v. Johnson & Johnson, His Lordship reasoned that the putative class must demonstrate that they have an "interest" in "any money or other property or thing" acquired by the Defendants because of a deceptive act, or practice. Accordingly, while the Plaintiff pleaded that he and the putative class had an interest in the monies paid to the Defendants in respect of the system access fee, Weatherill J. held that this proprietary nexus was more theoretical than actual as no foundation for the alleged proprietary interest had been pleaded. His Lordship made it clear that in exercising its gate-keeping role at the certification stage, "[w]hen a bald and unsupported assertion of fact, in this case a proprietary interest in co-mingled funds of the Defendants, defies credulity and common sense," the Court should not side-step such a flaw in the pleadings.

The Plaintiff's Claim for Unjust Enrichment and Money Had and Received

Weatherill J. found that the Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment and the Plaintiff's claim for money had and received were certain to fail. Counsel for the Defendants argued that each of the contracts the customers entered into with the Defendants expressly provided for the payment of the system access fees and therefore, these contracts were a juristic reason for any alleged enrichment. While the Plaintiff's counsel conceded that these contracts expressly stipulated that the Defendants' customers would pay a system access fee, they argued that it was an implied term of the contracts that the fees collected would not be used for any purpose other than remitting them to the government, or offsetting those same charges from the government. Weatherill J. reasoned that if, as the Plaintiff alleged, there was an implied term that the fees would either be remitted to the government as a tax/license fee, or used to recover monies that were being remitted then the Plaintiff's claim was one of breach of contract, not unjust enrichment. Meanwhile, it was held that the plea regarding money had and received to the use of the Plaintiff was advanced on the basis that there had been a partial or total failure of consideration under the services contracts. The Plaintiff had not pleaded a failure of consideration, and therefore, His Lordship concluded that it was plain and obvious that the Plaintiff's claim for money had and received was bound to fail.

The Balance of the Certification Requirements

Given his finding that Claim One and the claims for a declaration and injunction disclosed a cause of action, Weatherill J. considered the remaining certification requirements under ss.4(1)(b)-(e) of the CPA. Ultimately, the Court held that the Plaintiff's claims that disclosed a cause of action failed to satisfy the requirement under s.4(1)(b) that there be an identifiable class and the requirement under s.4(1)(d) that the class proceeding be the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the common issues.

Weatherill J. concluded that the identification of the class in this case was not amendable to a class proceeding on the basis that the identification of the class could not be resolved objectively. It was held that the class definition resulted in an "inherently and inescapably individualistic exercise." While counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the subjective enquiry could be made at a later time, His Lordship plainly disagreed.

The Plaintiff's claims for a declaration or an injunction under s. 172(1) of the BPCPA were held not to warrant certification because both a declaration and injunction would be binding upon the Defendants regardless of whether or not the proceeding was a class action. It was held the three principal goals of class proceedings, namely judicial economy, behaviour modification and access to justice were not served and that continuing the claim as an uncertified proceeding would provide full and effective redress for the claims that did disclose a cause of action.

In the result, the Court held that the action was not appropriate for certification and dismissed the Plaintiff's application for certification.

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.

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