Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff claimed breach of privacy, negligence, and consumer protection violations following a SIM-swap cryptocurrency theft.

• Defendants sought to enforce arbitration clauses under the wireless service agreement to stay court proceedings.

• Central issue was whether the new BPCPA amendments void arbitration clauses in consumer contracts retroactively.

• Court analyzed legislative intent, statutory interpretation, and applicability of transitional provisions.

• Determined that the amendments applied retrospectively, not retroactively, preserving Rogers' right to arbitration.

• Stay granted for all claims except the statutory claim under section 172 of the BPCPA, which remains in court.

Facts and outcome of the case

Raelene Vandenbosch filed a lawsuit on June 19, 2023, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Rogers Communications Canada Inc., Match Transact Inc. (operating as WOW! Mobile Boutique), an unidentified mobile clerk, and an anonymous hacker. The case arose after a security breach in June 2021, when a hacker impersonated a Rogers technician and tricked a Match kiosk clerk into enabling screen sharing. This granted the hacker access to Rogers' customer database, which led to a SIM-swap attack on the plaintiff's phone. As a result, the hacker gained control over Vandenbosch’s mobile number and accessed two of her cryptocurrency accounts, allegedly stealing over $500,000 in bitcoins, later valued at around $1 million.

The plaintiff alleged that Rogers and Match were responsible for the breach, asserting claims under British Columbia’s Privacy Act, for negligence, breach of contract, and under provincial consumer protection statutes in B.C., Ontario, and Quebec. She sought damages from all defendants.

Rogers and Match applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims should be submitted to arbitration per the arbitration clause in Rogers' wireless service agreement. The plaintiff initially conceded that some claims might be arbitrable but later withdrew that position after new amendments to British Columbia’s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA) came into force on March 31, 2025. These amendments prohibited mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. She argued that these new provisions invalidated Rogers’ arbitration clause even for older contracts like hers.

The central legal issue was whether the BPCPA amendments applied retroactively—invalidating arbitration clauses for disputes that arose before the law changed—or only retrospectively, affecting disputes arising after the amendments took effect.

The court ruled that the BPCPA amendments applied retrospectively, not retroactively. Since the plaintiff’s dispute occurred in 2021 and the arbitration clause was part of a pre-existing agreement, the amendments did not nullify the clause for this dispute. Justice Chan emphasized that the transitional provision did not contain language strong enough to indicate an intent to change the legal effect of past agreements for already-arisen disputes. He also referred to legislative debates (Hansard) which clarified that the changes were not meant to be retroactive.

Accordingly, the court granted Rogers and Match a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration for all claims except for the plaintiff’s statutory claim under section 172 of the BPCPA, which was allowed to proceed in court. No damages or legal costs were awarded as the decision addressed only the procedural question of arbitration, not the merits of the claims.