Telus Countersues Bell for $1 Million in Fibre Internet Showdown

Telus is accusing Bell of trying to block competition in Ontario and Quebec through what it calls a “frivolous” lawsuit — and now it’s fighting back.

In documents filed Friday, Telus submitted its official response to Bell’s lawsuit, denying the claims and launching a counterclaim that alleges Bell is using its control over fibre internet infrastructure to push Telus out of key markets.

In a statement to iPhone in Canada, Telus called Bell’s legal action “a transparent attempt to block competition,” arguing that the lawsuit is really about the CRTC’s decision to open up access to fibre networks, not any wrongdoing by Telus.

“Telus is delivering what the CRTC intended: more choice and better prices,” the company said, adding that consumers and small businesses now have more internet options in Ontario and Quebec than ever before.

In the filed statement of defence, Telus says, “Bell’s action advances false, baseless allegations against Telus as part of Bell’s wider public strategy to undermine and overturn the CRTC’s recent decisions that increase competition, affordability, and consumer choice for high-speed internet in Canada.”

The dispute began after the CRTC ordered major telecom companies, including Bell and Telus, to allow competitors access to their fibre-to-the-home networks. Telus used that opportunity to begin offering internet services in Bell’s home territory, paying Bell a regulated fee of $73 per customer. Telus claims that prices in those regions have dropped as a result, while Bell has continued to profit.

The court filing also accuses Bell of sabotaging Telus installations by sending technicians who either fail to show up or perform incomplete work, which delays service for new Telus customers. Telus says this setup is unavoidable because Bell controls the first step of the installation process, even when the customer is signing up with Telus.

According to the filing, “Bell has exploited this technologically unavoidable interaction to prey on Telus’s customers,” and technicians have been using that moment to convince people to switch to Bell instead.

Telus also denies Bell’s accusation that it promoted pirated TV services, calling the claims “outlandish.” The company acknowledged a small number of rogue third-party agents were found promoting unauthorized services, but said it responded immediately by suspending or terminating those agents and issuing a zero-tolerance policy.

The counterclaim filed by Telus accuses Bell of anti-competitive behaviour and seeks $1 million in punitive damages. Telus argues that Bell’s actions violate the Competition Act, the Telecommunications Act, and the CRTC’s rules, saying Bell is trying to protect its 80% market share in Ontario and Quebec by blocking new players.

This legal battle comes after Bell unsuccessfully tried to overturn the CRTC’s access mandate through multiple appeals and cabinet petitions. Telus says the lawsuit is just the latest move in a larger strategy to shut out competition.

“Telus focuses on providing customers with competitive, reliable, and affordable services,” the company told iPhone in Canada. “In contrast, Bell has embarked on a campaign to undermine the objectives of the Telecommunications Act and intentionally frustrate the CRTC Mandate.”

Last month at CRTC hearings, Telus told the Commission that Bell and Rogers compete by blocking TV content and media access, plus barring it from its advertising networks.

The case is now before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.