I don’t think anyone has yet mentioned yet that the drafter has not correctly described the conceptual operation of the set terms (though Ken fixes the problem in his 2 sentence version).

Here, the contract terminates by itself if it is not extended (albeit it extends automatically). The notice is therefore more accurately described as a notice of non-extension than a notice of termination. Had the drafter used non-extension terminology rather than termination terminology, the regulators could never have interpreted the clause as they did, wherever the commas were.

So I see this as more of an issue of precise description than an issue of syntax.

The real issue is much simpler: if the second comma had been omitted, the final prepositional phrase would apply to only “and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms”; but with the comma, the final prepositional phrase applies to the whole sentence, allowing Aliant to give notice at any time.

With or without the second comma, the grammar is correct; but the meanings are very different.

The final prepositional phrase should have been written in a sentence of its own, with the author’s intention made much clearer.

If, however, the author was intent on cramming everything into a single sentence, then a workable solution would be to change the order of the last two dependent clauses:

“shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is made and, thereafter, unless terminated by one-year prior written notice by either party, for successive five-year terms.”

This solution is a far cry from poetry, and two separate sentences would be best. But it would have avoided the bad result for Rogers in this case.

Correct analysis of the contentious sentence is made easier if we do a high-level parsing of the sentence. The sentence in its original form appears as follows:
“. . . this agreement shall be effective from the date it is made and shall continue in force for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.”

The sentence, when parsed, reads:

SUBJECT VERB COMPLEMENT

this agreement shall be effective C1
and
shall continue in force C2.1
and
C2.2
unless and until
C2.3

C1 = from the date it is made
C2.1 = for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made
C2.2 = thereafter for successive five (5) year terms
C2.3 = terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party

Now we see that the commas are in fact used to separate a list of complements to the verb phrase “shall continue in force”.

The only question left to be answered is “one year prior to what?”. The meaning of the first part of the sentence makes it evident that it is “one year prior to the end of the first five-year period or any of the successive five-year terms”. It would never mean “one year prior to when the terminating party wishes the agreement to no longer be in force” (which would then make mention of five-year periods meaningless).

The CRTC made an error in fact in their grammatical analysis. Once the analysis is done correctly, interpretation of the meaning of the entire sentence is plain and simple. In my opinion, should Rogers choose to appeal their ruling, they would be successful.