海角社区官网

The judge found the federal government liable for the torts of “negligence and negligent misrepresentation” because it changed the terms of Mobilicity鈥檚 mobile spectrum licences and intervened in the regulatory process to repeatedly frustrate the company鈥檚 proposed sale to Telus.

The attorney general of Canada filed a notice Friday afternoon seeking to overturn the ruling at the Ontario Court of Appeal and dismiss the damages Osborne awarded to Mobilicity鈥檚 shareholders 鈥� $411 million (U.S.) to Quadrangle and about $33 million (Cdn.) to Obelysk 鈥� subject to deductions for amounts already recovered and the addition of interest.

“The trial judge erred in making a single, cumulative assessment of whether Industry Canada owed the Respondents a duty of care,” the notice of appeal read, listing four pages of alleged errors by the judge.

The dispute can be traced back to 2006, when Industry Canada aimed to entice investors to acquire spectrum licences and launch new carriers to challenge the Big Three incumbents 鈥� Bell, Rogers and Telus.

Michael Binder, a senior federal official, approached 海角社区官网investor John Bitove, the operator of Obelysk Media, to encourage him to participate in the auction, according to the judge’s ruling.聽(John Bitove is the brother of Torstar owner and 海角社区官网Star publisher Jordan Bitove.)

In 2008, Quadrangle and Obelysk founded Mobilicity and acquired spectrum licences for more than $243 million, with the understanding from Industry Canada that the purchased licences could not be sold to incumbents for a five-year hold period, but could be freely transferred thereafter.

However, Industry Canada introduced a new transfer framework five years later, drawing a firm line to prevent entrenched incumbents from seizing spectrum聽intended for new entrants.

Osborne found that the new framework 鈥渃ompletely vacated the promises and representations made鈥� by Industry Canada and 鈥渢he Government knew this.鈥�

He rejected the federal attorney general鈥檚 arguments that Industry Canada had never made representations regarding transferability and could not be held legally responsible for exercising a “core policy.”

鈥淲hile the scope of policy discretion is broad, it cannot be so broad as to render meaningless specific representations intentionally and expressly made by the Government to a very limited class鈥� of investors, the court ruling read.

In its appeal, the attorney general of Canada argued that the judge made a legal error by concluding 鈥渢hat the adoption of the 2013 Transfer Framework was specifically intended to target Mobilicity.”

Mobilicity intended to sell its licences to Telus and applied for approval while it filed for creditor protection under the Companies鈥� Creditors Arrangement Act in 2014.

Osborne found that Industry Canada did not participate in “good faith” or address the proposed sale through proper court procedures, but instead orchestrated a media campaign aimed at 鈥渢hreatening and intimidating鈥� Telus and other potential Mobilicity bidders with exclusion from future spectrum auctions if they pursued a bid to purchase the licences.

The government ultimately carved out an exception to its policy, allowing Rogers to acquire Mobilicity and its wireless licences for $465 million 鈥� $82 million less than Telus鈥檚 highest bid at the time.

Quadrangle and Obelysk were not immediately available for comment at press time.聽