SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE
The $6-million class action lawsuit against Bell Mobility wrapped up in Yellowknife on Friday with closing arguments, and a verdict is expected to be delivered in a few months.
Two Yellowknife men, James Anderson and his son Samuel, launched the case six years ago, saying Northern customers were being cheated because there was no live operator when people dialed 9-1-1, only a recording directing callers to contact the emergency number for their area.
Anderson, 60, was the first witness called on March 4. He said he had signed a contract with Bell Mobility after moving to Yellowknife from Inuvik in August 2005.
When he signed up for the service at Roy's Audiotronic, he asked why he had to pay the 9-1-1 charge even though the service was not available and was told everyone has to pay it.
James said "something should happen" when a person in the NWT calls 9-1-1.
"With the current recording, nothing happens. There should be a live person," he said.
The defence argued that it's up to local governments to provide 9-1-1 services and nowhere in the contract does it imply the responsibility lies with the cellphone provider.
Seven witnesses were called over the duration of the five-day trial.
Lyne Jacques, a network engineer for Bell Mobility, testified that Bell is only responsible for routing the calls, and it only does so when it receives instructions from the local governments.
"In Whitehorse, we do have routing instructions that bring the call to the RCMP," said Jacques.
Whitehorse is the only community in the three territories that has 9-1-1 service. There were more than 20,000 NWT residents who were Bell Mobility cellphone clients as of January 2011.
Keith Landy, lawyer for the plaintiffs, asked whether there was an obligation to route the calls.
"When there is 9-1-1 service, yes," said Jacques.
"When 9-1-1 is available ,we are obligated to route it properly. If it's a non-served area and we didn't receive any instructions, we can't route it ourselves."
Bell stopped charging the 9-1-1 fee in November 2009 but insists its decision had nothing to do with the lawsuit.
Rather, it was a business move to counter competition from other cellphone services providers down south who had discontinued charging their 9-1-1 fees. Older Bell plans signed prior to November 2009 still carry the fee.
The court also heard from Mark Leclerc, who managed stores and dealers under Northwestel Mobility and later Bell Mobility. Landy asked Leclerc if NWT customers were informed that 9-1-1 was not available on their cellphones when they were purchasing them.
"Running the stores we made sure to inform people about the lack of 9-1-1 service," said Leclerc.
Landy asked if this was a directive from Bell Mobility.
"No, that was our common sense," said Leclerc.
During the final day, Landy argued that James Anderson wasn't in a position to argue the contract; he needed a cellphone and it put Bell Mobility, the only carrier in Yellowknife at the time, in a position of power because it wasn't something that was up for negotiation.
"If James had objected, he would have been told take it or leave it," said Landy.
"The consumer nature of the contract means what Anderson knew or didn't know, it's irrelevant."
Bell Mobility charged for services that were not provided meaning that the plaintiffs are entitled to damages, said Landy.
"It would be an unusual contract where one party charged for something that wasn't provided," he said.
Before closing the court, Justice R.S. Veale of the NWT Supreme Court, said it was one of the most civil trials he had seen and praised both sides for their amount of advocacy.
"This has been going on for a long time," he said.
"In this particular case I have found counsel to be very civil to each other, to the court and to the witnesses."
Veale is expected to release a verdict in a few months, said Landy.
