Yukoners excluded from Bell Mobility suit

Yukoners won’t be included in a class action lawsuit in the Northwest Territories against Bell Mobility.

Yukoners won’t be included in a class action lawsuit in the Northwest Territories against Bell Mobility.

In 2007, James Anderson and his son, Samuel Anderson of Yellowknife, filed a lawsuit against the telecommunications giant.

They claimed they are charged 75 cents a month for a 911 service they do not receive.

A 911 live operator service is not available in the Northwest Territories, nor is it available outside Whitehorse.

Many Yukon customers pay a 911 fee regardless of whether there is a live 911 operator or a recording redirecting them to the local emergency number.

In April of this year, the Andersons filed for certification of their lawsuit as class action, allowing them to represent Bell Mobility customers across Canada, instead of just themselves.

Yukon Supreme Court Justice Ron Veale, acting for the Northwest Territories’ superior court, later certified the lawsuit as a class action, but only for Bell Mobility customers in the Northwest Territories who entered into an agreement with the company before April 13, 2010.

There are approximately 20,000 Bell Mobility customers in the Northwest Territories.

Veale released a decision outlining the reasons for his conclusion on July 30.

According to his decision, the Andersons claim Bell Mobility is contractually obligated to provide a 911 emergency operator for the fee, but Bell Mobility says it is only required to receive and route 911 calls as designated by local governments.

The report indicates that, in the Northwest Territories, Bell Mobility has put all the necessary infrastructure and software in place for routing calls to a live 911 answering service, as soon as such a service is established by the local government.

Furthermore, Bell Mobility says James was aware there wasn’t a live 911 operator when he acquired his cellphone, and was aware he would be charged a 911 fee, reads the decision.

Veale says he doesn’t agree with Bell Mobility’s argument that “individual issues are at the heart of the Andersons’ claim ... and therefore it is neither fair nor manageable as a class action.”

Bell Mobility also argues that the class action will disintegrate into the examination of various claimants’ circumstances, which will complicate the resolution of the claims.

Veale again disagrees, saying the “individual claims will necessarily be small, and the individuals will not be able to proceed on an individual basis.”

Although the Andersons wanted to include in the class action customers who aren’t residents of the Northwest Territories, Bell Mobility opposed it, saying the ability to opt in for non-residents would be preferable.

Veale determined he didn’t have enough evidence to decide on the national class action and adjourned the issue to be considered when the Andersons could provide more evidence as to the identification and circumstances of non-resident claimants.

Veale ordered that a case management meeting be held, at which time a litigation plan will be decided and the procedure to determine whether there is a national class or opt in will be finalized.

A Bell Mobility spokesperson said early this afternoon the company will soon have a response to the decision.