Law360 Canada ( May 14, 2026, 9:37 AM EDT) -- Appeals by Rogers Communications Inc. and Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (collectively, Rogers) from two Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decisions. The decisions concerned Rogers’ carriage of three Corus Entertainment Inc. (Corus) discretionary channels. The first decision found Rogers could not remove Slice from pre‑assembled packages and offer it only as a standalone service because the standstill rule required Rogers to continue to distribute programming services at the same rates and on the same terms and conditions as before the dispute. Rogers appealed, arguing the standstill rule merely froze contractual rights and allowed it to make any changes contemplated by the affiliation agreements, including repackaging. The second decision addressed Rogers’ request that the standstill rule cease to apply, on the basis that the channels had undergone material changes because Rogers Media Inc. acquired much of their content and branding. Rogers argued these were new or materially different services, and that the standstill rule applied equally to Corus and prevented Corus from altering programming in a material way. Corus responded that the services continued under the same licences, operated within the same themes/genres, and that programming changes were permissible under the regulatory framework. Rogers submitted that the CRTC misinterpreted the standstill rule by freezing all change, rather than preserving contractual rights, that TVA Group required continuation of all pre‑dispute contractual terms, and that the CRTC failed to apply the standstill rule consistently. Corus submitted that the standstill rule required freezing rates and all terms and conditions to preserve the status quo until the dispute was resolved, that TVA Group addressed withdrawal of service, not repackaging, and that Rogers’ arguments about contractual obligations raised unappealable questions of mixed fact and law....