Rogers Wireless Inc. v. Muroff

Rogers Wireless Inc. (Rogers) (defendant) was a mobile telephone-service provider that issued roaming charges to Canadian subscribers who made telephone calls within the United States. The roaming charges were higher in some parts of the United States than in others. Dr. Frederick Muroff (plaintiff), a Quebec resident, was a Rogers subscriber. Muroff’s service agreement with Rogers contained an arbitration clause that required all disputes to go to arbitration and prohibited class actions. Muroff made calls in certain parts of the United States. Rogers charged Muroff the higher roaming rate. Muroff filed suit in Quebec and motioned for approval to commence a class action against Rogers, claiming that the higher roaming charges were improper. Relying on the arbitration clause, Rogers argued that the Quebec trial court lacked jurisdiction. Muroff argued that the arbitration clause was null and void because it was abusive to consumers. Muroff moved to compel discovery from Rogers. The Quebec trial court agreed with Rogers, denied Muroff’s motion for discovery, and referred the matter to arbitration. Muroff appealed. The intermediate appellate court reversed and ordered the Quebec trial court to decide the validity of the arbitration clause. Rogers appealed. While the appeal was pending, the Quebec government enacted legislation that prohibited the enforcement of arbitration clauses against consumers who wished to bring class-action lawsuits.