TELUS and S entered into a written cellular phone services contract in 2000. The standard form contract included a clause referring disputes to private and confidential mediation and arbitration. It further purported to waive any right to commence or participate in a class action. By statement of claim filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, S asserted a variety of claims, including (but not limited to) statutory causes of action under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA), alleging that TELUS falsely represented to her and other consumers how it calculates air time for billing purposes. She sought remedial relief under ss. 171 and 172 of the BPCPA in respect of what she contends are deceptive and unconscionable practices, as well as certification to act on her own behalf and as representative of a class of allegedly overcharged customers.

In the course of S’s application to have her claim certified as a class action, TELUS applied for a stay of all proceedings on the basis of the arbitration clause, pursuant to s. 15 of the  Commercial Arbitration Act. The trial judge denied TELUS’s application finding it was premature to determine whether the action should be stayed until the certification application had been decided. Applying the competence-competence principle, the Court of Appeal held that S was bound by the arbitration clause contained in the contract of adhesion in respect of all claims. In the result, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered a stay of S’s action in its entirety, holding that it is for the arbitrator to determine which claims are subject to arbitration and which should go before a court.