Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Quebec’s consumer protection law applies to telecom contracts, even for federally regulated companies like Telus.

• The court evaluated whether specific contract clauses amounted to penal infractions under the Loi sur la protection du consommateur (LPC).

• Telus argued that some infractions were not clearly created by law and that clauses were compliant or immaterial.

• The judge confirmed that Article 277 a) LPC creates penal liability for violations of the law or its regulations.

• Most alleged infractions were dismissed due to insufficient evidence or reasonable compliance.

• Telus was convicted on 15 of 70 counts, mainly for imposing prohibited administrative fees and omitting key consumer rights in contracts.

• Neither side won completely: Telus was convicted on 15 of 70 charges; the remaining 55 were dismissed.

Facts and procedural background

The Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP), acting on behalf of the Office de la protection du consommateur (OPC), filed penal charges against Telus Communications Inc. for violations of Quebec’s Loi sur la protection du consommateur (LPC). The charges stemmed from contracts for telecommunication services (phone, internet, and TV) entered into with consumers between 2012 and 2013. The OPC alleged that these contracts contained numerous clauses that violated mandatory provisions of the LPC, including illegal stipulations, missing mandatory information, and excessive cancellation fees.

In 2014, 364 charges were initially brought against Telus. After years of litigation—including constitutional challenges that reached the Supreme Court—only 70 charges remained for trial in 2025, focused on eight consumer contracts. Telus had previously contested the provincial government's authority to regulate its contracts, arguing federal jurisdiction over telecommunications. This constitutional issue was ultimately resolved in favor of Quebec's legislative competence, and a new trial was ordered.

Issues before the court

The trial addressed two key legal questions: (1) whether the impugned contractual clauses constituted penal infractions under Articles 11.2, 11.3, 13, 214.2, and 214.7 LPC when read in conjunction with Article 277 a); and (2) whether the prosecution had proven each infraction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Analysis of legal provisions

The court analyzed the relevant LPC provisions, which prohibit certain contractual stipulations (e.g., unilateral modification rights, fixed penalties, and administrative charges) and mandate disclosure of specific information in consumer contracts. The prosecution argued that Telus’s contracts contained multiple illegal clauses that violated these rules, and that such violations amounted to penal infractions under the LPC.

Telus challenged both the interpretation of these provisions and the sufficiency of the evidence. It argued that many of the clauses were merely informative, legally permissible, or irrelevant to the consumers in question. The defense further contended that the legislative text lacked clarity in some areas and should not result in penal liability without explicit language creating an offence.

The judge rejected the defense’s argument that Article 277 a) LPC failed to create valid penal infractions. Relying on jurisprudence and legislative interpretation, the court found that any contravention of the LPC or its regulations can be subject to penal sanction, unless explicitly excluded.

Public law

This case falls squarely within the scope of public law, which governs relationships between the state and private entities, and enables the government to enforce legal standards designed to protect the public interest.

Evaluation of the contracts and evidence

The court meticulously reviewed each of the eight contracts, focusing on whether they contained the alleged violations. Many charges were dismissed due to the absence of convincing evidence that a clause was non-compliant or material to the contract. For example, the judge found that clauses allowing Telus to change non-essential elements of service (like account access or optional features) did not violate Article 11.2.

However, the court upheld certain charges where Telus clearly violated the law. In particular, Telus imposed a $25 administrative fee for NSF (non-sufficient funds) cheques—expressly prohibited under Article 13 LPC as a predetermined penalty. Additionally, some contracts improperly required a 30-day notice to cancel, contrary to Article 214.2, which allows cancellation to take effect immediately upon notice. These and similar clauses resulted in convictions.

The court also assessed whether Telus’s calculation of early cancellation fees violated the law. The OPC’s evidence on this point was insufficient to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and Telus’s calculations were found to be reasonably supported by the contract terms and billing records.

Outcome and disposition

Telus was convicted on 15 of the 70 remaining charges. These related mainly to:

• prohibited administrative fees;

• omissions of required cancellation information; and

• insufficient clarity about consumer rights in specific clauses.

The remaining 55 charges were dismissed, either due to lawful wording of the clauses, immateriality, or failure of the prosecution to meet the burden of proof.

The court scheduled a separate hearing for sentencing arguments.