Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• TELUS attempted to reframe consumer class certification based on account usage rather than contractual designation.

• The court reaffirmed that consumer classification is determined at the time of contracting, not based on later mixed personal/business use.

• TELUS' internal account types (I-BAN vs. B-BAN) were deemed a reliable proxy for distinguishing consumer from business customers.

• No new or transformative evidence was introduced to justify amending the certification order.

• The court emphasized the finality and integrity of class certification decisions after years of litigation.

• TELUS' motion to amend the certification and decertify aggregate damages as a common issue was denied.

Facts and litigation history

In Wellman v. TELUS Communications Co., the plaintiff, Avraham Wellman, launched a class action against TELUS Communications, alleging systemic overbilling of mobile customers through a “rounding up” practice that charged users for full minutes even when calls were shorter. The class action, certified in 2014, originally included both individual consumers and business customers.

In 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that TELUS' arbitration clause was enforceable against business customers, effectively staying their claims. The class action continued with only individual consumers as members, as they were protected from arbitration under Ontario’s Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (CPA). The case is set for trial in 2026.

TELUS' motion to amend the certification order

In 2025, TELUS returned to court seeking to amend the original certification order. It claimed that class membership could no longer be reliably determined because of overlap between consumers and business users. TELUS argued that the distinction between account types (business vs. personal) was not sufficient and sought to either redefine the class or decertify aggregate damages as a common issue. TELUS also requested a stay of proceedings until a new litigation plan could be approved.

To support its position, TELUS introduced an affidavit from its Vice President, Dan Quick, who reviewed internal account records and reiterated that consumer and business usage can blur over time. However, Quick admitted that the records and policies he referenced had been available at the time of certification, and his affidavit simply elaborated on information already in the record.

Court’s analysis and conclusions

Justice Morgan dismissed TELUS’ motion, firmly stating that this was the company’s third attempt to challenge issues that had already been resolved in the certification process and upheld through multiple levels of appeal. He found no new facts or change in legal circumstances that would justify reopening the certification.

The court emphasized that the classification of a subscriber as a consumer or business customer depends on the intent and status at the time of contract formation—not on subsequent usage patterns. TELUS’ internal account types (I-BAN for individual, B-BAN for business) were considered reliable proxies for identifying consumer customers, as previously accepted by the original certification judge, Justice Conway.

Justice Morgan noted that even if some minor misclassifications existed, those issues could be addressed administratively after trial, not used to dismantle the certified class. He reinforced that class certification is not meant to be a flexible, ongoing process subject to repeated challenge without substantial justification.

Outcome

TELUS’ motion to amend the certification order was dismissed. The certified class remains composed of individual/consumer customers, and aggregate damages continue to be a certified common issue. The case will proceed to trial with the class structure and litigation plan intact.The certification order was upheld, TELUS’ arguments were rejected, and the consumer class action remains on course for trial.