Do Consumers Really Benefit from the Federal Paramountcy Doctrine? A Critique of Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions v Telus Communications Inc.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On June 11, 2020, the Quebec Superior Court released its judgment in DCPP v Telus, confirming the validity, applicability and — for the most part — operability of many provisions of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act applying to wireless service contracts. However, the Court concluded that sections 214.7 and 214.8 of the Consumer Protection Act, which set a limit on the early cancellation fees that may be charged to consumers by wireless service providers, were in conflict with the CRTC Wireless Code for certain types of contracts and therefore inoperative. The analysis in this comment suggests that the Court’s application of the doctrine of federal paramountcy is far from a victory for consumers. This comment begins with an overview of the federal and provincial regulations applying to wireless service providers, and of the framework of division of powers used to determine how these two different sets of rules interact with each other. It then provides a summary of the reasons given by the Court of Quebec and the Quebec Superior Court. Finally, it discusses the Court’s analysis and conclusions, focusing on its application of the federal paramountcy doctrine and its impact on the protection afforded to consumers in their contractualrelations with telecommunications carriers. It concludes by explaining how the Court’s solution to resolving conflicts between the federal Wireless Code and the provincial Consumer Protection Act actually deprives consumers of specific procedural benefits and more generous remedies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".