Hold The Line: Supreme Court Finds That “Transmission Line” Does Not Include 5G Wireless Antennas

On April 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued its decision in Telus Communications Inc. v Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2025 SCC 15, dismissing Telus Communications Inc., Quebecor Media Inc., Videotron Ltd. and Rogers Communications Canada Inc.’s (collectively, the Appellants) appeal, and upholding the Federal Court of Appeal’s (FCA) findings which restricted the meaning of “transmission line” under ss. 43 and 44 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) to “wireline infrastructure,” excluding the antennas used in 5G mobile wireless networks.

In 2019, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) initiated a broad review of mobile wireless services and the associated regulatory framework; “reducing barriers to infrastructure deployment for mobile wireless services” was a key consideration. This led to the question of whether the CRTC’s jurisdiction to regulate carriers’ access to public property extended to the installation of 5G small cell antennas, requiring the CRTC to interpret the meaning of “transmission line” in ss. 43 and 44 of the Act. The CRTC concluded that it did not have such regulatory jurisdiction, as “transmission line” did not include 5G small cell antennas or any wireless infrastructure.

On appeal, the FCA upheld the CRTC’s interpretation of “transmission line.” The Appellants further appealed to the SCC, urging the SCC to adopt a dynamic interpretation of “transmission line.” The Appellants argued that by applying the meaning of “transmission line” exclusively to wireline technology, the CRTC and the FCA frustrated Parliament’s intention for the Act to evolve with new technology. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (the Respondents) argued that Parliament instead intended for the installation of antennas to be left to good faith negotiations between carriers and public property owners.

Ultimately, the SCC dismissed the appeal, finding that it would be inconsistent with the text, context and purpose of ss. 43 and 44 of the Act for the term “transmission lines” to include antennas. A 7-2 majority found the ordinary meaning of “transmission line” to have a strong physical and linear connotation which did not apply to antennas, and that the broader context of the Act supported this narrower interpretation. Further, the SCC found that the general policy objectives of the Act did not require “transmission line” to be interpreted in the way that was most advantageous to the carriers but instead required a balancing of carriers’ interests against those of public authorities. The SCC accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Summary By: Claire Bettio