Skip to main content

PLEASE NOTE: For everyone’s safety, Fasken recommends anyone on-site at our Canadian offices be familiar with the COVID-19 recommendations in place which may include one or more of the following: social distancing, hand sanitizing, wearing a mask in common areas and proof of full vaccination. These measures apply to lawyers, staff, clients, service providers and other visitors.

Client Work

BC Supreme Court allows TELUS Mobility to maintain Flexible Share Plans marketing campaign

Reading Time 1 minute read Subscribe



Telus Communications

On November 23, 2006, the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the Court) dismissed Bell Mobility’s (Bell) application for interlocutory and interim injunctions against TELUS Mobility (TELUS). TELUS released a marketing campaign for its Flexible Share Plans. Bell alleged that the advertisements were false and misleading because they implied that other carriers, such as Bell, did not offer flexible plans. Applying the test for injunctive relief set out in British Columbia (AG) v Wale, the Court first determined there was a fair case to try. However, in considering the balance of convenience, the Court held that Bell did not have a strong prima facie case; that an injunction would be a serious interference with the status quo of the marketplace; and that even commercial speech is worthy of protection and is in the public interest. Therefore, the Court declined to grant the relief sought. TELUS kept its right to maintain the marketing campaign. Fasken Martineau was counsel to TELUS Communications with a team that included David Wotherspoon and Dierk Ullrich. Link to decision:  Bell Mobility Inc. v. TELUS Communications, 2006 BCSC 1954



    Receive email updates from our team