In 2006, some of the independent retailers selling Bell Products sued Bell.
"Independent retailers representing Bell Canada are suing Canada's largest telecommunications company, alleging "abusive, arbitrary" business practices.
"Independent retailers representing Bell Canada are suing Canada's largest telecommunications company, alleging "abusive, arbitrary" business practices.
The Independent Communications Dealer Association of Canada, claiming to represent four-fifths of Bell's independently operated stores, said today it has launched litigation in Ontario and Quebec alleging Bell has broken its contract in several ways."
The Independent Communication Dealer Association formed the obligatory website about the legal proceedings, which does not seem to have been updated or visited.
Last June, the Superior Court in Quebec, decided the following question.
1. Can Bell Distribution Inc. ("BDI") unilaterally modify the way it compensates its independent dealers for their sale of products and services as well as modify the market segment they are allowed to service?
After reviewing the facts, the Judge made the following observations about the duty of good faith and economic uncertainty.
"[108] In addition, the Civil Code codifies the duty of good faith at Articles 6, 7
and 1375 C.C.Q. and creates at Article 2805 a rebuttable presumption that a
person is in good faith.
[109] Consequently, the Dealers have the burden of proving that BDI, in bad
faith, implemented a new policy that was detrimental to them and commercially
unreasonable.
[110] The Dealers are BDI's business partners and they have the right to a fair
treatment. However BDI's duty of good faith and commercial reasonableness
does not go so far as to shield the Dealers from competition, changing market
conditions or strategic decisions by BDI designed to allow it to compete more
effectively in the market place, increase revenue globally and ensure future
growth. Market conditions evolve and so too will practices and expectations59.
[111] In the Court's view, the evidence reveals that BDI did abide by its duty of
good faith and commercial reasonableness in modifying its Corporate Account
Policy.
It consulted the Dealers prior to the adoption of the new policy, kept them
informed of the changes it intended to make and explained those changes.
BDI also took several concrete measures to support the Dealers, including the hiring of business sales managers and analysts, the implementation of an electronic tool, the organization of information sessions and other forms of training.60
[112] Consequently, the Court finds BDI's new Corporate Account Policy to be
valid.
An appeal was scheduled to be filed by the June 10, 2010.
