Executive summary: Key legal and evidentiary issues

• Rogers and Corus have been in a carriage dispute since 2023 over Corus' specialty channels Slice, Home Network, and Flavour Network, triggering the CRTC's regulatory standstill rule.

• The CRTC issued two decisions prohibiting Rogers from repackaging Slice and requiring continued distribution of all three channels at pre-dispute rates, terms, and conditions.

• Central to the appeal is whether the standstill rule under section 15.01 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations freezes all terms and conditions or merely preserves the existing contract with its built-in rights to make changes.

• Although the Ontario Superior Court of Justice confirmed Rogers' contractual right to repackage Slice, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the standstill rule applies to prevent Rogers from exercising that right during the dispute.

• The CRTC's findings that Corus' channels were not materially different were findings of fact, which are not appealable under the Broadcasting Act.

• The Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed both appeals with costs, affirming the CRTC's interpretation that the standstill rule freezes packaging, channel placement, and all distribution terms during a dispute.

The dispute between Rogers and Corus over specialty channel carriage

Rogers Communications Inc. and Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (collectively Rogers) and Corus Entertainment Inc. (Corus) entered into a dispute beginning in 2023 concerning Rogers' carriage of certain specialty television channels owned and operated by Corus. The three channels at issue were Slice, Flavour Network (formerly Food Network Canada), and Home Network (formerly HGTV Canada). Rogers distributed these channels under two affiliation agreements — one covering central and eastern Canada and the other for western Canada, the latter assumed through Rogers' acquisition of Shaw Communications Inc. Both agreements were last amended in August 2023, and on June 28, 2024, Rogers exercised its right to terminate them on six months' notice, such that both agreements terminated at the end of 2024. Corus notified the CRTC on March 9, 2023, that the parties were in a dispute. In an email dated September 8, 2023, Corus updated the CRTC to confirm that, although an agreement had recently been executed between the parties, Rogers had notified the CRTC that the agreement would expire in 120 days. The CRTC, in a letter dated August 5, 2024, confirmed that the dispute arose in 2023 and that the standstill rule applied as of September 8, 2023.

The CRTC's first decision on repackaging Slice

The first CRTC decision, dated November 18, 2024, addressed Rogers' proposal to repackage Slice by removing it from its preassembled television packages and offering it as a standalone service. The CRTC found that the phrase "terms and conditions" in the standstill rule should be interpreted broadly to include conditions relating to the carriage, packaging and sale of programming services. The CRTC reasoned that the mere fact that the standstill rule does not explicitly mention the term "packaging" or its synonyms such as "combination" or "package" cannot be construed as an exclusion. The intention behind the standstill rule, the CRTC stated, is to temporarily freeze a situation in which a service finds itself until such time as the parties can resolve the underlying dispute or the Commission renders a decision, so that parties cannot leverage such changes to unfairly influence the negotiations. Accordingly, the CRTC ruled that Rogers could not repackage Slice without contravening the standstill rule and its regulatory obligations.

Rogers' challenge and the CRTC's second decision

In response, Rogers submitted a letter on November 22, 2024, requesting that the CRTC confirm the standstill rule did not apply to Slice, Home Network, or Flavour Network as of December 31, 2024. Rogers argued that Rogers Media Inc. (RMI) had acquired the majority of the Bravo content that had defined Slice's programming lineup and value proposition, as well as the vast majority of HGTV and Food Network brands and content, making these channels materially different from what they were when the standstill took effect. Corus submitted a reply dated November 26, 2024, setting out its position on why the services were not and would not be new or materially different. Rogers responded on November 29, 2024, reiterating that there had been a material change to Slice and there would be material changes to HGTV (Home Network) and Food Network (Flavour Network). The CRTC's second decision, also dated November 29, 2024, noted that the services would continue to operate under the same discretionary service licences and would still offer programming under the same theme/genre, that while several programs offered by these services would change, the overall focus of the services would remain the same, and that there was no limitation in the licences or in the policy framework that prevents a service from changing its programming offering. The CRTC confirmed that Rogers must continue to distribute Slice, Home Network and Flavour Network at the same rates and on the same terms and conditions as before the dispute, including packaging and channel placement.

The regulatory framework: the standstill rule

The standstill rule at the heart of this case is set out in section 15.01 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (applicable to broadcasting distribution undertakings such as Rogers) and section 15 of the Discretionary Services Regulations (applicable to programming undertakings such as Corus). Both provisions require that during a dispute, the parties must continue to distribute or provide programming services at the same rates and on the same terms and conditions as existed before the dispute. The dispute begins when written notice is provided to the Commission and served on the other undertaking that is party to the dispute, and it ends when an agreement settling the dispute is reached or, if no such agreement is reached, when the Commission renders a decision concerning any unresolved matter. Neither party disputed that the standstill rule took effect as of September 8, 2023, nor that the dispute remained unresolved.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice proceedings

Separately, Corus had applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for a declaration that Rogers could not remove Slice from its television packages. Justice Penny (2024 ONSC 6126) reviewed the agreement between Rogers and Corus for eastern Canada and concluded that Rogers' right, at its sole option, to freely create retail product packages conferred a broad right to package Corus' channels as Rogers sees fit. However, Justice Penny acknowledged that the issue of the applicability and scope of the regulatory standstill was squarely before the CRTC. The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that the Ontario Superior Court's decision on contractual rights did not address the scope or application of the standstill rule in the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, and that the issue before the Court was whether, even though Rogers had the contractual right to repackage Slice, the standstill rule applied to prevent Rogers from doing so.

The Federal Court of Appeal's analysis of the standstill rule

The Federal Court of Appeal, applying the correctness standard of review for questions of law as established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, undertook an analysis of the standstill rule's text, context, purpose, and the governing statutory framework. On text, the Court found that the requirement to distribute programming services "at the same rates … as it did before the dispute" meant that rates were frozen during the dispute, and likewise, the other terms and conditions should also be frozen during the dispute. The Court observed that if the standstill rule simply means that the parties are bound by the contract that they had signed and the provisions of that contract continue unabated, the standstill rule would be rendered meaningless, since the parties would be bound by their contract with or without the standstill rule. On context, the Court noted that the standstill rule is part of the dispute resolution process set out in the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, and that maintaining the status quo is potentially less disruptive for consumers. On purpose, relying on the earlier decision in TVA Group Inc. v. Bell Canada, 2021 FCA 153, the Court confirmed that the standstill rule exists to preserve the status quo with respect to programming, maintain a level playing field throughout a negotiation process, ensure that Canadian consumers are not deprived of services during such disputes, and protect the public interest. On the statutory framework, the Broadcasting Act under section 3(1)(t)(iii) specifically references broadcasting distribution undertakings providing reasonable terms for the carriage, packaging and retailing of programming services, and section 10(1)(h) grants the CRTC very broad powers to make regulations for resolving disputes.

The appeal concerning the second decision and material changes

Regarding the second decision, the Court found that the CRTC's findings — that the services would continue to operate under the same discretionary service licences and under the same theme/genre, and that the overall focus of the services would remain the same — were findings of fact. An appeal to the Court from a decision of the CRTC is limited to a question of law or jurisdiction, and no appeal lies from a finding of fact. The Court also noted that Rogers itself acknowledged, in its memorandum and submissions to the CRTC, that in order for a change in programming content to be in breach of the standstill rule, it must be a material change, which implicitly conceded that any change that is not material would not be subject to the standstill rule. Rogers' attempt to have the Court interpret the affiliation agreements to determine whether Corus was contractually obligated to provide specific "key output content" was rejected, as the interpretation of the agreements would involve issues of mixed fact and law (Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, at paragraph 50), and therefore it would not be appropriate for the Court to interpret the contract given that appeals under the Broadcasting Act are restricted to questions of law or jurisdiction.

The ruling and outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision delivered on March 5, 2026, by Justice Webb (with Justices Heckman and Biringer concurring), dismissed both of Rogers' appeals with costs awarded to Corus Entertainment Inc. The Court affirmed that the CRTC did not err in its interpretation of the standstill rule in either the First Decision or the Second Decision. No specific monetary amount was awarded or ordered, as the case concerned regulatory compliance with the standstill rule rather than a damages claim; costs were awarded to the successful respondent Corus, though the exact quantum was not specified in the decision.