Videotron loses bid for Ottawa relocation costs as predecessor’s access agreement survives

The CRTC has rejected a request that the City of Ottawa pay approximately $300,000 for relocating telecommunications equipment, finding that Videotron remained bound by an earlier agreement that placed those costs on the carrier.

In Telecom Decision CRTC 2026-251, issued September 28, 2026, the commission found that corporate transactions transferring the equipment to Videotron had not replaced the municipal access agreement under which it was installed.

The commission also dismissed Ottawa’s request for compensation for redesigned conduits, but on a different basis: it lacked statutory authority to order that payment.

Two agreements provided different treatment

Ottawa entered separate municipal access agreements in 2008 with Videotron and Société de Réseaux Dédiés Privés inc., or SRDP. Videotron’s agreement required the city to compensate it for municipality-initiated relocations. SRDP’s agreement did not provide the same compensation.

SRDP assigned its rights and obligations to Canadian P2P Fibre Systems Ltd. The equipment at issue was installed between 2016 and 2020 on Montreal Road and near Algonquin Station. It came under Videotron’s ownership through a series of corporate transactions involving SRDP, P2P and Fibrenoire.

Ottawa required relocation in 2021, and Videotron completed the work in 2022. Quebecor Media Inc., acting for its subsidiary Videotron, sought reimbursement under Videotron’s own agreement.

Quebecor argued that the agreement covered all equipment Videotron owned, including acquired equipment. Ottawa maintained that the original terms continued to apply.

Acquisition did not displace existing obligations

The commission first determined that it could decide which agreement governed. Although its power to revisit existing agreements was limited, neither party was asking it to rewrite their terms. Identifying the applicable agreement was an access-related question of mixed fact and law within its authority.

Reading each agreement as a whole, the commission relied on SRDP’s clause binding successors and assignees. Another provision continued the agreement’s application regardless of who owned the supporting infrastructure. Videotron’s agreement did not say that it automatically displaced another agreement after an acquisition.

The commission also considered the commercial context. SRDP’s early assignment to P2P showed that transfers had been contemplated. Allowing ownership changes to replace the governing terms could create uncertainty about municipal access rights and permit avoidance of existing obligations, it found.

Quebecor relied on a liquidation notice stating that Videotron’s agreement would apply and on Ottawa’s decision to stop invoicing a $5,000 annual payment under the SRDP agreement.

Neither the notice, the correspondence nor the invoicing practice established Ottawa’s agreement to a substitution, the commission concluded. Videotron could not unilaterally cancel the earlier obligations.

Because the SRDP agreement required the carrier to bear relocation costs for municipal purposes, Quebecor’s compensation request failed.

Ottawa’s separate claim exceeded the commission’s powers

Ottawa sought payment for redesigned conduits requested by and supplied to Videotron as part of the Montreal Road project.

The commission distinguished that request from the municipal remedies available under section 44 of the Telecommunications Act. That provision allows orders to bury or reroute a transmission line, or to prohibit its construction, maintenance or operation. Ottawa was seeking compensation instead.

The dismissal therefore reflected the commission’s lack of authority to decide that claim, rather than a ruling that Videotron could owe nothing under another legal process.