9-1-1 appeal dismissed
Bell Mobility is reviewing decision that could impact thousands of customers
Randi Beers
Northern News Services
Published Friday, January 9, 2015
SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE
Charging for 9-1-1 services where none exist is like charging a fee for milk and delivering empty bottles, wrote a NWT Court of Appeal justice in quashing a recent Bell Mobility Inc. appeal.
James Anderson calls his court victory against Bell Mobility Inc. a win for all Northerners. In 2007, Anderson and his son, Samuel, sued Bell alleging the corporation charges, but does not provide, 9-1-1 services to people in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon, outside Whitehorse. - Randi Beers/NNSL photo |
The company's appeal of a NWT Supreme Court decision in favour of a Yellowknife family who launched a class action lawsuit against the company in 2007, was dismissed in a decision published Wednesday.
Eight years ago James Anderson and his son Samuel took Bell to court, alleging it charges for, but does not provide, 9-1-1 services to its customers in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon – excluding Whitehorse where the service is available.
In May 2013, NWT Supreme Court Justice Ron Veale ruled in favour of the Andersons and their $6 million class-action lawsuit.
Bell was charging a monthly 75-cent 9-1-1 connection fee while asserting it was up to local governments to establish, maintain and fund such services. As well, Bell argued its customers were aware there is no 9-1-1 service in Yellowknife when they signed a contract with the corporation.
According to Bell Mobility's figures provided by Anderson, an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 Bell customers across the North stand to benefit from the lawsuit.
"Everyone who held a Bell Mobility contract within the years of the suit are eligible and members (of the lawsuit) by default, unless they opted out," said Anderson.
Appeals court judge Jean Cote peppered his written decision, which was unanimously agreed upon by Justice Neil Sharkey and Justice Thomas W. Wakeling, with a number of colourful metaphors.
"It is like delivering to a starving person a photograph of a turkey dinner, and charging him or her for the turkey dinner," wrote Cote.
He added he believes the "suggestion that when someone in the territories dials 9-1-1, he or she sometimes gets the metaphysical benefit of being connected to someone else's recorded message" but it is unappealing nonetheless.
Elsewhere in the document Cote calls Bell's actions akin to charging a delivery fee for milk and delivering empty bottles, charging tickets for a plane with no empty seats, and charging Northerners for up-to-date weather forecasts only in Mexico.
"It is a 'service' which does not work at all because it is incomplete, like a special hairdryer cord with no hairdryer," he wrote.
One of the central legal issues the decision hinges on is the ambiguous wording of Bell's contract, which says customers "may" be charged a 9-1-1 connection fee, which Cote wrote "obviously" means it's possible a 9-1-1 fee will not be charged.
"Parties can contract on almost any terms that they wish," wrote Cote.
"They can contract for … payments for nothing. But where the wording of the contract is ambiguous, a court should be slow to adopt an interpretation which gives one party pay for nothing."
The judge also awarded the Andersons their legal expenses.
Last year, Veale ordered Bell to pay $338,546 in legal costs.
It's been a very long road to get to reach this decision, Anderson explained to Yellowknifer Thursday morning, describing the feeling of getting there as gratifying.
"For sure this is a win for all Northerners, and for all Bell Mobility customers in the Northwest Territories, Yukon outside of Whitehorse and Nunavut," he said.
"This (lawsuit) was launched in 2007 – and so it's been a long time, although I recognize the potential exists for the final appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I suppose it's not over until it's over, but certainly we are pleased that the appeals court decision was unanimous and the original trial judge's decision was upheld at every step."
If Bell decides to appeal the decision again, the case would move to Canada's highest court. Anderson said he hasn't discussed the possibility of following the case to the Supreme Court with his lawyers, but conceded, "we'd have to."
"It's long, it's expensive and I can only guess the reason it's gone this far is because Bell has very deep pockets and they could afford it," he said.
In an e-mail response, Bell Mobility spokesperson Jason Laszlo said Bell is reviewing the decision.
The decision was published Wednesday.
