Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Class action centered on allegations that Telus overbilled customers for mobile phone call connection times not disclosed in contracts

• Dispute included whether the billing practice constituted a deceptive or unfair trade practice under consumer protection law

• Evidence focused on Telus’s billing system and how charges accrued during system set-up and ringing time

• No admission of liability was made by Telus despite agreeing to a multi-million dollar settlement

• Reasonableness of the settlement and class counsel’s fees were scrutinized and ultimately approved by the Court

• The case had a significant procedural history, including multiple appeals and a companion case in Alberta

Facts and outcome of the case

The case began in 2005 when Michelle Seidel initiated a class action against Telus on behalf of customers who alleged they were improperly charged for mobile phone calls. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that Telus billed customers not only for the time they were actively speaking on the phone but also for the “system set-up time” — the time it took the network to connect and ring the call — without clearly disclosing this in its billing practices. This practice was claimed to be misleading and a breach of consumer rights.

The case was subject to a lengthy litigation history spanning two decades, including several contested hearings, appeals, and even a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada. A parallel class proceeding also took place in Alberta, with both cases moving toward a joint settlement.

The matter eventually reached a resolution through mediation with the assistance of former Justice Oppal. A settlement agreement was reached in January 2020 but was delayed in seeking court approval, largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court heard applications for settlement approval in October 2024 and January 2025.

The approved settlement provided for Telus to pay up to $3.7 million, which included $3,000,700 in vouchers for class members, a $125,000 cy-près payment to technology-related charities in British Columbia and Alberta, and $500,000 in legal fees for class counsel. Additionally, disbursements, taxes, and administration costs were covered. The settlement contained no admission of liability by Telus.

Justice Masuhara, presiding over the matter, found the terms of the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the class. He also approved the legal fees and disbursements, noting that the requested fees represented a reduction from the originally contracted 30% of the settlement value. The Court concluded that the settlement was consistent with precedent and required counsel to report back on the results of the voucher redemption program.

Ultimately, while there was no formal finding of liability against Telus, the class achieved a favorable resolution with meaningful financial and charitable outcomes, closing a case that had persisted for nearly 20 years.