As has been previously discussed at some length at Digital Home, Novus has complained about certain Shaw promotions that targeted Novus customers. Novus filed a civil action against Shaw in the BC Supreme Court. On July 22, 2010, Mr. Justice Greyell of the BC Supreme Court granted Shaw's application striking out portions of the Novus suit.
Specifically, Mr. Justice Greyell agreed with Shaw that whether Shaw's activities in targeting Novus customers were legal was not within the Court's purview. Novus framed its complaint as a breach of the federal Competition Act
and the Court agreed with Shaw that such a complaint fell within the jurisdiction of the Competition Tribunal and struck out those paragraphs of Novus' Statement of Claim that relate to Shaw's limited area promotions in certain buildings in which Novus provides service. The Court also struck out the portions of the Statement of Claim that sought damages in tort against Shaw on the basis that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
Novus also complained that Shaw's "Now 50% Faster" campaign suggested that Shaw's internet service was 50% faster than what Novus offers. To quote Mr. Justice Greyell:
In applying these tests to the "Now 50% Faster" advertisement I am unable to conclude a reasonable person would view the words used as referring to the plaintiff's business. I am of the view the interpretation any reasonable person would place on the words is that Shaw is directing the advertisement to its own customers, and anyone else who might be interested, that its services are 50% faster than they used to be. This fact is made clear by Shaw's use of the word "Now" - which implies that in the past Shaw's services were slower and that Shaw has "Now" improved the speed of its services The advertisement makes no reference to Novus or to any Shaw competitor.
The effect of the decision dismisses the torts of injurious falsehood and unlawful interference. It also confirms that the proper venue for any complaint Novus does have rests with the appropriate administrative tribunal, not with the Court.
The full reasons can be found here