The French language has trumped the comma in a contract dispute between Rogers Communications Inc. and Bell Aliant Regional Communications LP.

Rogers claimed victory yesterday after the French version of a five-year contract convinced the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to overturn an earlier decision in which the regulator said the placement of a comma justified Bell Aliant's decision to terminate the contract early.

In the English version, the CRTC said last year, the insertion of a comma to separate a termination clause from a clause about future renewals of the contract suggested the contract could be terminated before it expired in 2007. Had there been no comma, it would have been clear that the right to termination applied only to the end of the contract that set telephone pole access fees and future renewals. In the French version, the commission concluded yesterday, there were no errant commas to cloud the termination rights.

"We're pleased that we prevailed," said Pam Dinsmore, vice-president of regulatory issues for Rogers. "We're pleased the commission interpreted the clause in the same way we had done."

In addition to providing the commission with a French version and drafts of the contract, Rogers took issue with the federal regulator's grasp of grammar, insisting the "rule of punctuation that the Commission purported to rely on did not exist" and was "inconsistent with ordinary English."

Even if the commission's "alleged punctuation rule" existed, it was an error of law to rely on it without consider "broader rules of construction," Rogers argued.

Bell Aliant had argued that last year's decision in its favour should stand, saying the decision was "valid, regardless of the rules of punctuation and? an inquiry into the separation of phrases by commas was unnecessary."

The firm further argued it was "inappropriate" to try to determine the intent of the contract in French because it was "a form of words and a language" the companies did not use.

But in yesterday's decision, which reversed the earlier ruling, the CRTC said it was appropriate to review the French version of the contract because the commission had approved the pole access rates and regulations in both English and French in 2000 when they were put in place.

"The Commission considers that, between the two versions, it is appropriate to prefer the French language version as it has only one possible interpretation, and that interpretation is consistent with one of the two possible interpretations of the English language version."

The dispute now boils down to $800,000 in fees Rogers has paid for access to telephone poles since the more favourable contract with Bell Aliant was terminated prematurely last year.

"Unfortunately it's not over. There's still money at stake," Ms. Dinsmore said yesterday.