MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS LITIGATION RISKS S ystem Access Fee – S askatchewan Cellular Devices Other Claims The plaintiffs intend to seek an order certifying the proceeding as a national class action in Saskatchewan. We have not recorded a liability for this contingency. In July 2013, a class action was launched in British Columbia against providers of wireless communications in Canada and manufacturers of wireless devices. The class action relates to the alleged adverse health effects incurred by long-term users of cellular devices. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and punitive damages, effectively equal to the reimbursement of the portion of revenues the defendants have received that can reasonably be attributed to the sale of cellular phones in Canada. We have not recorded a liability for this contingency. In 2004, a class action commenced against providers of wireless communications in Canada under the Class Actions Act (Saskatchewan). The class action related to the system access fee wireless carriers charged to some of their customers. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and punitive damages, which would effectively be a reimbursement of all system access fees collected. In 2007, the Saskatchewan Court granted the plaintiffs’ application to have the proceeding certified as a national, “opt-in” class action where affected customers outside Saskatchewan must take specific steps to participate in the proceeding. In 2008, our motion to stay the proceeding based on the arbitration clause in our wireless service agreements was granted. The Saskatchewan Court directed that its order, in respect of the certification of the action, would exclude customers who are bound by an arbitration clause from the class of plaintiffs. There are certain other claims and potential claims against us. We do not expect any of these to have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated financial position. The outcome of all the proceedings and claims against us, including the matters described above, is subject to future resolution that includes the uncertainties of litigation. Based on information currently known to us, we believe that it is not probable that the ultimate resolution of any of these proceedings and claims, individually or in total, will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. If it becomes probable that we are liable, we will record a provision in the period the change in probability occurs and it would be material to our consolidated financial position and results of operations. We appealed the 2007 certification decision, however, it was dismissed by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied. In 2012, the plaintiffs applied for an order seeking to extend the time they can appeal the “opt-in” decision of the Saskatchewan Court. In March 2013, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal denied the plaintiffs’ application. In August 2009, counsel for the plaintiffs began a second proceeding under the Class Actions Act (Saskatchewan) asserting the same claims as the original proceeding. If successful, this second class action would be an “opt-out” class proceeding. This second proceeding was ordered conditionally stayed in 2009 on the basis that it was an abuse of process. Rogers is a family-founded, family-controlled company. Voting control of Rogers Communications is held by Rogers Control Trust whose beneficiaries are members of the Rogers family, several of whom are also directors of our Board. The trust holds voting control of Rogers Communications Inc. and its subsidiaries for the benefit of successive generations of the Rogers family. The trust also deals with Rogers on the company’s long-term strategy and direction. The trustee is the trust company subsidiary of a Canadian chartered bank. In April 2013, the plaintiffs applied for an order to be allowed to proceed with the second system access fee class action. In August 2013, the court denied this application and the second action remains conditionally stayed. In December 2013 the plaintiff applied for an order permitting them to amend the Statement of Claim to reintroduce the claims they were not permitted to proceed with in the 2007 certification decision. We are awaiting the decision of the Saskatchewan Court. We have not recorded a liability for this contingency. As of December 31, 2013, private Rogers family holding companies controlled by the trust owned approximately 90.9 % of our outstanding Class A Voting shares and approximately 9.8 % of our Class B Non- Voting shares, or in total approximately 28 % of the total shares outstanding. Only Class A Voting shares carry the right to vote in most circumstances. As a result, the trust is able to elect all members of our Board and to control the vote on most matters submitted to a shareholder vote. In December 2011, a class action was launched in British Columbia against providers of wireless communications in Canada about the system access fee wireless carriers charge to some of their customers. The class action relates to allegations of misrepresentations contrary to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (British Columbia), among other things. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and restitution. A certification hearing is scheduled for April 2014. We have not recorded a liability for this contingency. We conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2013, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, pursuant to Rule 13a-15 promulgated under the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at that date. In June 2008, a class action was launched in Saskatchewan against providers of wireless communications services in Canada. It involves allegations of breach of contract, misrepresentation and false advertising, among other things, in relation to the 911 fee that had been charged by us and the other wireless communication providers in Canada. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and restitution. 78 ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS INC. 2013 ANNUAL REPORT CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES 911 Fee S ystem Access Fee – British Columbia Controlling S hareholder OWNERSHIP RISK