A British Columbia pharmacy manager, Raelene Vandenbosch, has taken legal action against Rogers Communications and Match Transact Inc. following the theft of over 12 BTC—initially valued at approximately $531,000 in 2021 and now worth about $1.8 million—through a SIM swap fraud operation. This case involves a claim for negligence, invasion of privacy, and breach of contract connected to the actions of an employee of a mobile phone kiosk in Montreal. The author will discuss the significant developments in an accessible manner.
A Deceptive Call in Montreal
In June 2021, Vandenbosch received an alert that her cryptocurrency accounts on Ledger and Shake Pay were locked. An investigation revealed that a hacker had impersonated a Rogers technician and tricked an employee at a Match owned kiosk in Montreal into sharing their computer screen. Despite Vandenbosch living in B.C. at the time, the hacker accessed her account, ported her number to a new SIM card, and transferred all 12 BTC from her wallet.
Lawsuits Across Three Provinces
After contacting Rogers, Vandenbosch was offered only a $95 credit for one month’s service—a modest gesture given her losses. Unconvinced, she filed legal claims in B.C., Ontario, and Quebec, accusing both Rogers and Match Transact of negligence, privacy violations, and breach of contract. The complete demand includes the original value of the Bitcoin in 2021, other damages, and an admission of liability.
Arbitration vs Public Court Proceedings
Both defendants relied on an arbitration clause in Vandenbosch’s contract with Rogers stating that the dispute should be handled in private arbitration. On June 27, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anita Chan ruled that the majority of the issues were for arbitration, but allowed the request for a public admit of fault claims to continue in a public court action, because of the public’s interest in the proceedings.
This split means that if Vandenbosch is able to succeed in her claims, arbitration would limit (possibly) her ability to recover the total amount stolen from her. Furthermore, any admission of liability may not trigger financial compensation if resolved solely through arbitration.
Legislative Changes Could Shift the Game
Earlier in 2025, the B.C. government enacted amendments to ban mandatory arbitration clauses in cell phone contracts – only applying to disputes commencing after March 31, 2025. Vandenbosch raised arguments that those changes should apply retroactive application; however, Justice Chan did not agree: because her case preceded the rules, the arbitration rules remained enforceable.
Industry Response and Wider Implications
Rogers, defending its security protocols, issued a statement asserting the rapidly evolving nature of fraud attempts and pledging continual safeguards for customers. The telecom sector is under increasing pressure to bolster internal verification systems and clamping down on SIM swap attacks.
This case could be far-reaching: if arbitration clauses allow telecom companies to escape liability for serious breaches of security, that would leave consumers with little legal recourse, according to some observers, who believe it could lead to stricter industry practices and regulations.
What’s Next for Vandenbosch?
Vandenbosch is represented by Hammerco Lawyers, which reportedly has Vandenbosch reviewing its options to either continue with arbitration, appeal the decision of the court regarding arbitration, or continue to pursue a public admission in court. The result may impact consumer protection laws, privacy protections, and provide certainty for telecom providers for their responsibilities in the digital world.
Final Thoughts
Vandenbosch’s case presents an exciting intersection of privacy rights, consumer protection, and digital asset security. As cryptocurrency continues to gain acceptance in our society, the telecom industry’s role in preventing account takeovers becomes increasingly significant. Even if arbitration limits disclosure, she is using her public court claim to raise awareness of corporate accountability. The world will be watching- not just for the Bitcoin, but for the ramifications for protections of digital consumers.
