Supreme Court of Canada dismisses application for leave to appeal
October 19, 2017 - The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal. Unfortunately, this means that the decision of the Superior Court of Justice, finding in favour of Bell Mobility, will stand.
Plaintiff seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
August 28, 2016 - The plaintiff has filed an application for leave to appeal the most recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. A decision is pending.
Court of Appeal affirms its original decision, dismisses appeal
April 12, 2017 - The Ontario Court of Appeal has affirmed its original decision to dismiss the appeal. After reviewing the Supreme Court's decision in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., the Court of Appeal concluded that there was no basis to reach a different conclusion than had been reached in its October 20, 2016 decision.
You can read the Court's decision here.
The plaintiff and her counsel are considering whether to again seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Supreme Court of Canada sends the case back to the Court of Appeal
October 20, 2016 - The Supreme Court of Canada has sent this case back to the Ontario Court of Appeal "for disposition in accordance with Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co."
Ledcor is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with the interpretation of standard form contracts, such as the one at issue in this case. The Ledcor decision was just released in September 2016, and was therefore not available to the Ontario Superior Court when it considered Bell's summary judgment motion, or the Ontario Court of Appeal when it determined the appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada has essentially asked the Court of Appeal to reconsider whether the contract in this case was properly interpreted in light of the principles set out in Ledcor.
A new appeal date before the Ontario Court of Appeal has been scheduled for Friday January 20, 2017.
Court of Appeal Dismisses Appeal
April 4, 2016 – The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision today dismissing the appeal of the judgment of Justice Belobaba granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing the lawsuit. A copy of the decision can be found here. We have filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Class Counsel is appealing the Honourable Justice Belobaba’s January 28th decision
We will provide further details regarding the appeal and the next steps in the case on this website.
March 31, 2015 - The parties argued the merits of the case in a summary judgment motion on January 28, 2015, before the Honourable Justice Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On February 12, 2015, His Honour released his decision on the summary judgment motion in favour of Bell. Click here to read the Judgment. Sotos LLP and Goldblatt Partners LLP (formerly Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP) have filed a Notice of Appeal of his honour’s decision. Click here to read the Notice of Appeal. Further updates will be posted here once a timetable has been determined for the hearing of the appeal. We will advise of the specific date of the appeal once it has been set by the Court of Appeal.
Notice of Certification
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has allowed a class action lawsuit against Bell Mobility Inc. to proceed
TORONTO, August 18, 2014 - The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has allowed a class action lawsuit against Bell Mobility Inc. to proceed, which seeks compensation on behalf of all persons in Ontario who were prepaid, pay-per-use wireless phone customers of Bell Mobility, Virgin Mobile Canada and Solo Mobile and had balances remaining in their accounts at the end of an active period which expired between May 4, 2010 and December 16, 2013 (the “Class”).
Short-form Notice (English)
Version abrégée (Français)
Certification Order Upheld by Appeal Court
TORONTO, December 16, 2013 - The Ontario Divisional Court has rejected the request by Bell Mobility Inc. to review the decision of the Ontario Superior Court certifying this case as a class action. The case will now proceed to trial.
A copy of the Court's decision can be read here.
$100 Million Class Action Against Bell Mobility Certified - More than 1 million customers affected.
TORONTO, Oct. 4, 2013 - A class action against Bell Mobility Inc. ("Bell") alleging that the expiry dates on its pre-paid wireless services are illegal was certified by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice today.
The lawsuit, which includes more than 1 million class members in Ontario, alleges that Bell systemically breaches its contracts with its pre-paid wireless customers by seizing credit balances. In particular, the lawsuit alleges that pre-paid wireless services payments are "gift cards", as defined by Ontario's Consumer Protection Act, and cannot have an expiry date. The plaintiffs are seeking $100 million in damages from Bell.
The allegations in the lawsuit have not yet been proven in court.
The representative plaintiff, Celia Sankar, lives in Elliot Lake, Ontario, and is founder of the DiversityCanada Foundation, a not-for-profit organization. Ms. Sankar is a Bell pre-paid wireless customer who had her credit balance seized twice, in September 2011 and February 2012. Ms. Sankar will represent anyone in Ontario who purchased or otherwise acquired pre-paid wireless services under the brands Bell Mobility, Virgin Mobile Canada and Solo Mobile since May 4, 2010.
The law firms of Sotos LLP and Goldblatt Partners LLP (formerly Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP) ("Class Counsel") represent Ms. Sankar and the other members of the class.
"This decision is a victory for the vulnerable consumers who use pre-paid wireless services," said Sankar. "These services are popular with many persons of limited means. It's tremendously important that they have access to the court through a class action proceeding to have their claims fairly tried."
Lead counsel, Louis Sokolov of Sotos LLP, noted that class counsel are currently investigating similar claims against other wireless companies and added that, in the absence of a class action, the claims of individual customers would remain unresolved.
"No one would ever bring their own lawsuit for the $20 or $30 that wireless companies take from their customers when their balances expire," said Sokolov. "That it is why it is so important that consumer cases like this be certified and corporations like Bell be required to answer the allegations."
Co-counsel Christine Davies and Nadine Blum of Goldblatt Partners LLP observed this is the first case to consider the "gift card" provisions of Ontario's Consumer Protection Act.
"The gift card law was intended to protect consumers from losing cash equivalents. Class members pre-paid money into their accounts so that they would have funds available to purchase services and products from Bell on an ongoing basis. If successful at trial, this case will ensure that consumers' pre-paid amounts are protected."