Canada’s major wireless carriers want to overturn what they call retroactive provisions in the federal telecom regulators’ new wireless code of conduct, a move critics say could push back implementation of long-awaited consumer safeguards.

In a notice of motion this week, cell phone service providers including Rogers Communications, Bell Mobility, Telus Communications and Saskatchewan Telecommunications asked the Federal Court of Appeal to allow their appeal of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s code as it relates to wireless contracts.

They say the CRTC “exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law” in applying terms of the code to contracts signed before the rules start coming into force on Dec 2.

In its national code of conduct for cellular service providers announced June 3, the CRTC said customers can terminate their contracts after two years without cancellation fees, even if they have signed on for a longer term.

The move effectively gives Canadians access to contracts at less than the current three-year norm, while the code also caps data roaming fees and makes it easier to switch to a new provider.

But the carriers called the code’s wording on rules affecting existing contracts ambiguous and said they are seeking clarification from the court.

Shawn Hall, a spokesman for B.C.-based Telus, said providers want clarity — and they want the court to roll back any retroactive provisions in the code.

“The retroactivity aspect sets a troublesome precedent,” he said. Hall added that the principle of retroactivity run counter to contract law and should be removed so that the new code applies only to cellphone contracts going forward.

The notice says retroactive application of the code would override existing contracts, causing concern among providers over whether they could recover the full cost of device subsidies provided to customers whose contracts expire after June 3, 2015.

Hall said Telus is fully supportive of other aspects of the code, which was established after a public and industry consultation and follows a spike in consumer complaints about restrictive cellphone contracts, billing errors and arbitrary charges.

Steve Anderson, executive director of Internet freedom advocacy group OpenMedia.ca, said the motion could delay implementation of the CRTC’s code, although he said other aspects of the rules could be in place starting late this year.

The carriers say the code’s language is contradictory regarding contracts signed between June 3, when the code was announced, and the December deadline for the start of implementation.

The CRTC said all provisions would apply to all wireless contracts by June 3, 2015.

The carriers say they want the court to clarify aspects of the code, such as whether any new contract signed by Dec. 2 would be considered two-year, so customers could cancel without penalties as of June 2015.

It’s also unclear whether the application of the code to existing contracts as the CRTC has set out would qualify as retroactive under contract law, Anderson said.

The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association had already asked the CRTC to clarify the code’s language pertaining to the timing of implementation, while the CRTC has received a legal opinion solicited by SaskTel that says it lacks jurisdiction to apply provisions of the code retroactively.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“It is clear that the commission intended the final June 3, 2015 implementation date to be a mandatory date,” the CRTC said in a response to the CWTA.

After that date, it said early cancellation fees for all wireless service contracts “will be determined in accordance with the formula set out in the code.” A CRTC spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“The clarity of the June 3, 2015 date might have been more evident had the CRTC more precisely used the word ‘will’ or ‘shall’ (in the code), instead of the more discretionary term ‘should,’ ” said telecom analyst Mark Goldberg of Mark H. Goldberg & Associates.

Read more about: