XML 88 R35.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.0.1

contingent liabilities | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2024
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 mobile 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 mobile 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 following items. ​ Certified class actions Certified class actions against us include the following: System access fee class action In 2004, a class action was brought in Saskatchewan against a number of past and present wireless service providers, including us, which alleged breach of contract, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and violation of competition, trade practices and consumer protection legislation across Canada in connection with the collection of system access fees. In September 2007, a national opt-in class was certified by the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench in relation to the unjust enrichment claim only. In February 2008, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench granted an order amending the certification order so as to exclude from the class of plaintiffs any customer bound by an arbitration clause with us. After a long period of dormancy, the Plaintiff sought, in 2024, to advance the class action. The defendants have applied to dismiss the class action for want of prosecution. 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” mobile 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 on April 4, 2019, granted our appeal and stayed the claims of business customers. Notice of this certified class action was provided to potential class members in 2022. 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 mobile 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. 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. 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. On June 28, 2021, the Quebec Superior Court approved the discontinuance of this claim against TELUS. 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. 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. As at December 31, 2024, 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: Classes of contingent liabilities [domain]] + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Name IAS -Number 37 -IssueDate 2024-01-01 -Paragraph 86 -URI https://taxonomy.ifrs.org/xifrs-link?type=IAS&num=37&code=ifrs-tx-2024-en-r&anchor=para_86&doctype=Standard -URIDate 2024-03-27 + Details
Name: | ifrs-full_DisclosureOfContingentLiabilitiesExplanatory
Namespace Prefix: | ifrs-full_
Data Type: | dtr-2022:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration