Muroff v. Rogers Wireless Inc., (2007) 365 N.R. 177 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 13, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2007), 365 N.R. 177 (SCC);2007 SCC 35

Muroff v. Rogers Wireless Inc. (2007), 365 N.R. 177 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2007] N.R. TBEd. JL.004

Rogers Wireless Inc. (appellant) v. Frederick I. Muroff (respondent)

(31383; 2007 SCC 35; 2007 CSC 35)

Indexed As: Muroff v. Rogers Wireless Inc.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.

July 13, 2007.

Summary:

Muroff believed that he paid too much for U.S roaming charges on his Rogers cell phone. He applied for authorization to institute a class action against Rogers on behalf of himself and all other Rogers subscribers who were allegedly overcharged. Rogers invoked an arbitration clause and argued that the court did not have jurisdiction over the matter. Muroff challenged both the charge and the arbitration clause, arguing that they were abusive, contrary to art. 1437 of the Civil Code of Québec and s. 8 of the Consumer Protection Act (Que.).

The Quebec Superior Court held that it did not have jurisdiction over the matter and referred it to arbitration. Muroff appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Rogers appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the Superior Court's decision.

Arbitration - Topic 102

Right to arbitration - What matters arbitrable - [See Quebec Procedure - Topic 8407 ].

Quebec Procedure - Topic 8407

Arbitration - General - What matters arbitrable - Muroff believed that he paid too much for U.S roaming charges on his Rogers cell phone - He applied for authorization to institute a class action against Rogers on behalf of himself and all other Rogers subscribers who were allegedly overcharged - Rogers invoked an arbitration clause and argued that the court did not have jurisdiction over the matter - Muroff challenged both the charge and the arbitration clause, arguing that they were abusive, contrary to art. 1437 of the Civil Code of Québec and s. 8 of the Consumer Protection Act (Que.) - The application judge referred the matter to the arbitrator, holding that she did not have jurisdiction over the matter - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed - Faced with a challenge to the validity of an arbitration clause that would have required a detailed factual inquiry on a mixed question of law and fact, the application judge was correct to renounce jurisdiction in favour of the arbitrator, under art. 940.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Que.).

Cases Noticed:

Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs et al. (2007), 366 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 1].

Statutes Noticed:

Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-25, art. 940.1 [para. 9].

Counsel:

Pierre Y. Lefebvre, Éric Simard and Isabelle Deschamps, for the appellant;

Albert A. Greenspoon, Johanne Gagnon and Steve Whitter, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Kaufman Laramée, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 14, 2006, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on July 13, 2007, and the following reasons were filed:

McLachlin, C.J.C. (Binnie, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 21;

LeBel, J., concurring - see paragraphs 22 to 26.