XML 129 R35.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

contingent liabilities | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2018
contingent liabilities |
contingent liabilities | 29 contingent liabilities (a) Claims and lawsuits General A number of claims and lawsuits (including class actions and intellectual property infringement claims) seeking damages and other relief are pending against us and, in some cases, other wireless carriers and telecommunications service providers. As well, we have received notice of, or are aware of, certain possible claims (including intellectual property infringement claims) against us and, in some cases, other wireless carriers and telecommunications service providers. It is not currently possible for us to predict the outcome of such claims, possible claims and lawsuits due to various factors, including: the preliminary nature of some claims; uncertain damage theories and demands; an incomplete factual record; uncertainty concerning legal theories and procedures and their resolution by the courts, at both the trial and the appeal levels; and the unpredictable nature of opposing parties and their demands. However, subject to the foregoing limitations, management is of the opinion, based upon legal assessments and information presently available, that it is unlikely that any liability, to the extent not provided for through insurance or otherwise, would have a material effect on our financial position and the results of our operations, including cash flows, with the exception of the items enumerated following. Certified class actions Certified class actions against us include the following: Per minute billing class action In 2008 a class action was brought in Ontario against us alleging breach of contract, breach of the Ontario Consumer Protection Act, breach of the Competition Act and unjust enrichment, in connection with our practice of “rounding up” wireless airtime to the nearest minute and charging for the full minute. The action sought certification of a national class. In November 2014, an Ontario class only was certified by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in relation to the breach of contract, breach of Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment claims; all appeals of the certification decision have now been exhausted. At the same time, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined to stay the claims of our business customers notwithstanding an arbitration clause in our customer service agreements with those customers. This latter decision was appealed and on May 31, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed our appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada granted us leave to appeal this decision and has now heard our appeal; we are awaiting the Court’s decision. Call set-up time class actions In 2005 a class action was brought against us in British Columbia alleging that we have engaged in deceptive trade practices in charging for incoming calls from the moment the caller connects to the network, and not from the moment the incoming call is connected to the recipient. In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a stay of all of the causes of action advanced by the plaintiff in this class action, with one exception, based on the arbitration clause that was included in our customer service agreements. The sole exception was the cause of action based on deceptive or unconscionable practices under the British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, which the Supreme Court of Canada declined to stay. In January 2016, the British Columbia Supreme Court certified this class action in relation to the claim under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. The class is limited to residents of British Columbia who contracted wireless services with us in the period from January 21, 1999, to April 2010. We have appealed the certification decision. A companion class action was brought against us in Alberta at the same time as the British Columbia class action. The Alberta class action duplicates the allegations in the British Columbia action, but has not proceeded to date and is not certified. Subject to a number of conditions, including court approval, we have now settled both the British Columbia and the Alberta class actions. Uncertified class actions Uncertified class actions against us include: 9-1-1 class actions In 2008 a class action was brought in Saskatchewan against us and other Canadian telecommunications carriers alleging that, among other matters, we failed to provide proper notice of 9-1-1 charges to the public, have been deceitfully passing them off as government charges, and have charged 9-1-1 fees to customers who reside in areas where 9-1-1 service is not available. The plaintiffs advance causes of action in breach of contract, misrepresentation and false advertising and seek certification of a national class. A virtually identical class action was filed in Alberta at the same time, but the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench declared that class action expired against us as of 2009. No steps have been taken in this proceeding since 2016. Electromagnetic field radiation class actions In 2013 a class action was brought in British Columbia against us, other telecommunications carriers, and cellular telephone manufacturers alleging that prolonged usage of cellular telephones causes adverse health effects. The British Columbia class action alleges: strict liability; negligence; failure to warn; breach of warranty; breach of competition, consumer protection and trade practices legislation; negligent misrepresentation; breach of a duty not to market the products in question; and waiver of tort. Certification of a national class is sought. No steps have been taken in this proceeding since 2014. In 2015 a class action was brought in Quebec against us, other telecommunications carriers, and various other defendants alleging that electromagnetic field radiation causes adverse health effects, contravenes the Quebec Environmental Quality Act, creates a nuisance, and constitutes an abuse of right pursuant to the Quebec Civil Code. The authorization hearing for this matter occurred in May 2018 and on June 27, 2018, the Quebec Superior Court dismissed the authorization application. That decision is now final. Public Mobile class actions In 2014 class actions were brought against us in Quebec and Ontario on behalf of Public Mobile’s customers, alleging that changes to the technology, services and rate plans made by us contravene our statutory and common law obligations. In particular, the Quebec action alleges that our actions constitute a breach of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act, the Quebec Civil Code, and the Ontario Consumer Protection Act. It has not yet proceeded to an authorization hearing. The Ontario class action alleges negligence, breach of express and implied warranty, breach of the Competition Act, unjust enrichment, and waiver of tort. No steps have been taken in this proceeding since it was filed and served. Handset subsidy class action In 2016 a class action was brought in Quebec against us and other telecommunications carriers alleging that we breached the Quebec Consumer Protection Act and the Civil Code of Quebec by making false or misleading representations relating to the handset subsidy provided to our wireless customers, and by charging our wireless customers inflated rate plan prices and termination fees higher than those permitted under the Act. The claim was later amended to also seek compensation for amounts paid by class members to unlock their mobile devices. This action has not yet proceeded to an authorization hearing. Intellectual property infringement claims Claims and possible claims received by us include: 4G LTE network patent infringement claim A patent infringement claim was filed in Ontario in 2016 alleging that communications between devices, including cellular telephones, and base stations on our 4G LTE network infringe three third-party patents. The Plaintiff has since abandoned its claims in respect of two of the three patents. The claims based on the third patent are set to be tried in the fourth quarter of 2019. Other claims Claims and possible claims received by us include: Area code 867 blocking claim In 2018 a claim was brought against us alleging breach of a Direct Connection Call Termination Services Agreement, breach of a duty of good faith, and intentional interference with economic relations. The plaintiffs allege that we have improperly blocked calls to area code 867 (including to customers of a plaintiff), for which a second plaintiff provides wholesale session initiation trunking services. The plaintiffs seek damages of $135 million. Summary We believe that we have good defences to the above matters. Should the ultimate resolution of these matters differ from management’s assessments and assumptions, a material adjustment to our financial position and the results of our operations, including cash flows, could result. Management’s assessments and assumptions include that reliable estimates of any such exposure cannot be made considering the continued uncertainty about: the nature of the damages that may be sought by the plaintiffs; the causes of action that are being, or may ultimately be, pursued; and, in the case of the uncertified class actions, the causes of action that may ultimately be certified. (b) Indemnification obligations In the normal course of operations, we provide indemnification in conjunction with certain transactions. The terms of these indemnification obligations range in duration. These indemnifications would require us to compensate the indemnified parties for costs incurred as a result of failure to comply with contractual obligations, or litigation claims or statutory sanctions, or damages that may be suffered by an indemnified party. In some cases, there is no maximum limit on these indemnification obligations. The overall maximum amount of an indemnification obligation will depend on future events and conditions and therefore cannot be reasonably estimated. Where appropriate, an indemnification obligation is recorded as a liability. Other than obligations recorded as liabilities at the time of the related transactions, historically we have not made significant payments under these indemnifications. See Note 21(d) for details regarding our guarantees to the real estate joint ventures. As at December 31, 2018, we had no liability recorded in respect of our indemnification obligations.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | ifrs-full_DisclosureOfContingentLiabilitiesAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | ifrs-full_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The disclosure of contingent liabilities. [Refer: Contingent liabilities [member]] + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Name IAS -Number 37 -IssueDate 2018-01-01 -Paragraph 86 -URI http://eifrs.ifrs.org/eifrs/XBRL?type=IAS&num=37&date=2018-03-01&anchor=para_86&doctype=Standard -URIDate 2018-03-16 + Details
Name: | ifrs-full_DisclosureOfContingentLiabilitiesExplanatory
Namespace Prefix: | ifrs-full_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration