After months of dispute, Rogers & Corus take fight over channel placements, repackaging to Federal Court of Appeal

Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal will hear Rogers Communications Inc.’s arguments in its fight with Corus Entertainment Inc., one that has spanned arguments to the CRTC and provincial court before reaching this point. The court decided last week to grant Rogers leave to appeal two decisions by the CRTC, which found the company cannot make changes to the packaging or channel placement of some of Corus’ programming shown on its TV service —, specifically re-packaging Slice and moving on its TV guide two channels with home and food programming —, without breaking the standstill rule. The fight between the two companies over channel placements began heating up after Rogers took the rights for a series of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. brands from Corus last June. In January, the brands’ content — including HGTV and The Food Network — began broadcasting as Rogers’ properties. Following that change, Corus now offers a Home Network and Flavour Network. Among other core arguments, Rogers and Corus disagree on how consumers would react to a repositioning of Corus’ Home and Flavour channels from where they currently sit on the channel guide. Rogers argues that moving the two Corus channels is necessary so that TV subscribers looking for content that was once offered by Corus but is now offered by Rogers “are not confused following Corus’ loss of the branding and content for these channels.” But Corus asserts that leaving its Home and Food channels in their longstanding positions in Rogers’ guide is more appropriate. Meanwhile, the two have additionally been in dispute over Rogers’ repackaging of Corus’ Slice programming. Last June, Rogers announced it would launch NBCUniversal’s Bravo channel in Canada, featuring content from some brands previously licensed to Corus’ Slice channel. According to its filing to the Federal Court of Appeal, Rogers told Corus in August it planned to change the packaging of Slice after Corus lost the licensing rights to the Bravo programming. Corus argued against the Slice repackaging and took the fight to Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice asking it to find that Rogers’ plans were in breach of its contractual obligations, which the court dismissed in November. Corus also went to the CRTC for relief After two November decisions from the CRTC found that Rogers cannot make any changes to the Corus’ programming without breaking a standstill rule, Rogers argued those CRTC decisions were unfair. It has taken the fight to the Federal Court of Appeal, which has agreed to hear its case. READ MORE: - Independent Broadcast Group backs Corus in dispute with Rogers over channel placement - Rogers snatches content from Corus and Bell When broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) and programmers are fighting over carriage of programming, the standstill rule requires BDUs to keep distributing that programming to its customers at the same cost as it did before the fight began. The rule is typically in effect until the two sides come to an agreement or the CRTC makes a decision on the matter, if it was not resolved. The goal of the rule, according to the CRTC, is to make sure Canadian TV viewers do not lose access to the services they want to see while BDUs and programmers work through their dispute. When issuing its decision in early November, the Ontario court found that existing agreements between Rogers and Corus did not block Rogers from removing Slice from its TV packages, but the court noted that interpretation and enforcement of the broadcasting distribution regulations falls within the jurisdiction of the CRTC and the Federal Court of Appeal. Meanwhile, Rogers told Corus that it also planned to change the channel positions of the Food Network/Flavour Network and HGTV/Home Network services, which had been in their same positions for years, according to Corus, which said they would be moved “100 positions away from their existing positions on many of its systems effective December 30, 2024.” That led Corus to bring a complaint to the CRTC arguing Rogers was giving itself undue preference, and that Rogers was breaking both the wholesale code and the standstill rule. The CRTC’s November 2024 decisions On Nov. 18, 2024, the CRTC decided Rogers could not repackage Slice without breaking the standstill rule. In response to that decision, Rogers argued in a letter to the regulator that requiring it to freeze its carriage and packaging of Corus’ services while at the same time allowing Corus to make changes to the channels’ branding and content would be a one-sided application of the rule in Corus’ favour. Later, on Nov. 29, 2024, the CRTC made its second decision related to Corus’ services, finding that the standstill rule stops Rogers from either repackaging Corus’ channels or changing the channel numbers. According to Rogers’ court filing, the CRTC has “repeatedly affirmed” in past work that channel placement is “commercial in nature.” It argued the commission’s general approach is to not intervene on specific channel placement. CRTC applying rules unfairly, Rogers argues According to Rogers, the CRTC is in both cases applying the standstill rule unfairly. The argument that the standstill rule overrides Rogers’ “contractual right” to package the Corus services as it sees fit is wrong and “overreaching,” asserts Rogers. The company says the CRTC is forcing a contractual relationship to Corus’ financial benefit and the “detriment of Rogers and its customers.” “Consumers, in particular, will be forced to pay for channels that no longer carry the most popular programming that they want and expect,” Rogers said. According to Rogers, the CRTC’s interpretation of standstill regulation “undermines its own stated objectives to ensure that BDUs have flexibility to package and set retail prices for discretionary services in the manner that they consider will best respond to customer demand and enable them to compete.” The company argues that the CRTC does not have authority to “force the maintenance of a permanent or indefinite contractual relationship” between the two companies, nor does it have the authority to “impose mandatory carriage indirectly by way of the standstill rule or its dispute resolution process,” Rogers argues. Corus refutes Rogers’ arguments, claiming Rogers “conveniently overlooks the fact that it is Rogers itself who is responsible for the changes to the Corus programming services.” Corus alleges that the only reason it introduced supplemental programming content or changed the branding of its programming services is because Rogers looked to cut out “the middle company” and outbid Corus for the rights to the NBCUniversal and Warner Bros. programming. Disruptions for customers Corus alleges that Rogers is trying to push it out of its network and force it to compete against Rogers’ own programming services “on unfavourable terms” before the dispute is resolved. “Allowing Rogers to pursue this strategy would not only undermine Corus’ capacity to negotiate with Rogers, but also significantly disrupt viewers’ experiences during the course of the dispute. The standstill rule cannot be interpreted to authorize such a result,” Corus wrote. Corus says that if Rogers were allowed to change the Corus services’ channels by moving the Flavour Network and the Home Network to higher-number channels, its services would be “significantly less discoverable” to viewers, “who would at the same time be incorrectly led to believe that Rogers' own Food and HGTV channels were the same as Corus’ versions.” It is consumer confusion that Rogers bases part of its stance on. According to Rogers, the proposed channel realignments are necessary to make sure that TV subscribers who chose Food Network and HGTV as part of their subscription “are not confused following Corus’ loss of the branding and content for these channels.” “By placing new channels in the channel positions currently associated with the Warner Bros. Discovery’s HGTV and Food Network brands and content, Rogers seeks to minimize customer disruption and confusion,” the company said. But Rogers has given no evidence that its subscriber revenue would drop due to the standstill, or that subscribers will be any worse off than they were before the dispute “by continuing to have access to Corus’ programming services,” Corus alleges. “Contrary to Rogers’ assertions, Corus’ programming services remain popular and desirable among consumers, and much of the most-watched programming on Slice, Food Network, HGTV Canada has remained on Slice, Flavour Network, and Home Network respectively,” Corus alleges. The court asked Rogers to file two separate notices of appeal, in relation to each of the CRTC decisions it is contesting, but was told it could also request that the filings be consolidated. None of the allegations has been tested in court. - With files from Paul Park and The Wire Report staff archives. hdaley@thewirereport.ca

After months of dispute, Rogers & Corus take fight over channel placements, repackaging to Federal Court of Appeal

Broadcast |
By Hannah Daley
| March 14, 2025

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

After months of dispute, Rogers & Corus take fight over channel placements, repackaging to Federal Court of Appeal

Broadcast | By Hannah Daley | March 14, 2025

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Rogers laying off customer service workers; Corus cutting Global News staff, radio jobs

WildBrain accuses Rogers of unfair treatment of its children’s programming

Corus earnings lag in Q1 despite efforts to stop the bleeding

Corus revenue, profit decrease for Q4 and fiscal 2024

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Broadcast |
By Hannah Daley
| March 14, 2025