A Squamish pharmacy manager alleges she lost more than $534,000 in bitcoin in 2021 鈥� worth roughly $1.8 million now 鈥� after her personal information was given to a hacker by a cellphone store employee.
Raelene Vandenbosch sued Rogers Communications and Match Transact Inc. in three provinces, alleging the loss resulted from a "SIM-swapping" scam that was the fault of a mobile phone kiosk employee.
Now, a recent B.C. Supreme Court decision might force her to resolve the issue in private arbitration, outside of a courtroom.
Vandenbosch's court filing said that when she first approached Rogers about the situation, she was offered a refund on one month's service, totalling $95. She then filed lawsuits in court in Ontario, Quebec and B.C. to try to recoup more.
She alleges the money was stolen after a hacker pretending to be a Rogers technician convinced a mobile kiosk employee in Montreal to share their computer screen. This allowed the hacker to gain access to her account information 鈥� even though she lived across the country in B.C. 鈥� to download onto a SIM card in the hacker's possession.
The hacker then allegedly hijacked her account, locked her out and stole the bitcoin.
Vandenbosch is suing for negligence, breach of privacy and breach of contract, and is seeking restoration of the amount the bitcoin was worth at the time it was stolen, plus damages and a public admission of wrongdoing by Rogers.
In a response filed in court, Rogers would not admit or deny the allegations, instead arguing any resolution should be made through arbitration rather than in the courts. Vandenbosch signed an arbitration agreement with Rogers as part of her cellphone plan.
In a June 27 decision, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anita Chan ruled that the case must go to arbitration, except for the part seeking a public admission by Rogers, which the judge ruled can proceed because it is in the public interest. Chan did not rule on the facts of the case in her decision.
The effective result could be that if Vandenbosch continues the suit and Rogers is forced to admit fault, she still doesn't get paid back for the lost bitcoin.
She could continue to pursue the case with the possibility that she will not be able to recoup much of the money, or she could opt to appeal Chan's decision.
According to her attorney, Alexia Majidi of Hammerco Lawyers, Vandenbosch has not yet decided how she will proceed and is declining to comment further at this time.
A Rogers spokesperson defended the company's security record in an email to Black Press Media, while also noting the security risk associated with cryptocurrency.
"As fraudsters use constantly evolving techniques to try and take advantage of consumers across the wireless industry, we continually strengthen our security measures to protect our customers against fraudulent activity," the spokesperson said.
Criminals allegedly gained "unfettered access"
According to Vandenbosch's initial court filing, she alleges that on or about June 30, 2021, a mobile phone kiosk clerk working for a WOW! Mobile Boutique (owned by Match Transact Inc.) in Montreal answered a call from a person claiming to be a Roger's technician.
This fake technician allegedly convinced the clerk to share computer screens, giving them "unfettered access" to a Rogers customer database.
This allowed the hacker to make changes to customer accounts, including the ability to swap SIM cards and phone numbers. The hacker then allegedly assigned Vandenbosch's account to a new SIM card, gaining full access to her phone number, emails, texts, WhatsApp and other messaging services.
Vandenbosch discovered the next day that she had lost all access to her phone number and mobile data from her phone.
The hacker was then allegedly able to gain access to Vandenbosch's cryptocurrency accounts on Ledger and Shakepay, stealing 12.57969337 bitcoins, worth an estimated $534,529.87 at the time. This amount of bitcoin is worth more than $1,840,100 as of July 4, 2025.
Vandenbosch accuses Rogers of failing to adequately beef up security, despite being aware of the risk of fraud posed by SIM swap scams since 2015.
She also claims Rogers failed to protect her information by allowing kiosk workers access to too much personal information and failing to mandate verification questions.
A spokesperson for the Canadian Telecommunications Association told Black Press in an email that SIM fraud is a global phenomenon that can involve a criminal gaining access to someone's personal information through various means, including purchasing stolen info on the dark web, then posing as the victim to a wireless provider.
Changes to arbitration rules in B.C. too late for Vandenbosch
Vandenbosch's central argument for why she should not be required to go through arbitration rests on amendments the B.C. government made to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act in March.
The B.C. government amended the legislation so cell phone companies can no longer impose these agreements on customers, arguing forced arbitration hurts consumers.
Vandenbosch contended that these new rules must be retroactively applied to her case.
Justice Chan disagreed, citing comments by Attorney General Niki Sharma in the legislature in which she said the rules are not meant to be retroactive.
The B.C. Ministry of Attorney General clarified further in response to questions from Black Press Media.
"The prohibition came into force on Royal Assent of Bill 4 on March 31, 2025 and applies to new disputes that are launched after the date of Royal Assent," the ministry said in an email from a spokesperson. "This means if a supplier had a pre-existing contract with an arbitration clause, the parties are no longer bound to arbitrate if they were not already in arbitration at the time."
In her decision, Chan offered one caveat: the case can proceed under a section of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act that allows for resolution in the public interest.
This section predates the spring rule changes and allows for a judge to order a company to publicly accept responsibility or make changes and restore "any money or other property or thing" that was acquired through activity found to violate the act.
Vandenbosch's claim seeks to have Rogers publicly declare it engaged in "deceptive" or "unconscionable" acts in this case, but this "restoration order" might not apply to the bitcoin. It is generally used to force a merchant to pay back money to a customer who is suing.
In this case, the money wasn't taken by Rogers. And, according to her court filing, after four years, Vandenbosch still does not know who took the bitcoin.