Even without the stellar creative team behind Rogers v. Rogers, Crow’s Theatre might have guessed they had a hit on their hands, for one simple fact. There is nary a Canadian who uses a telephone or cellphone, logs onto the internet or watches TV who isn’t mad at the way we are served, more like screwed, by our telecommunications corporations.
In adapting Alexandra Posadski’s book, Rogers v. Rogers: The Battle for Control of Canada’s Telecom Empire for the stage, playwright Michael Healey chose as narrator and protagonist Matthew Boswell, then Canada’s Commissioner of Competition, to tell the story of the feud over control of the company Ted Rogers built.
The battle culminated in a merger of Rogers and Shaw Communications that everyone, especially Boswell, was sure would not be allowed under the Competition Act. It was. At the same time Ted’s son Edward Rogers finally seized control of Rogers Communications.
Director Chris Abraham found in Tom Rooney the actor who could pull off a one-man performance involving many characters, male and female, the actor switching roles more rapidly as the 95-minute satire proceeds.
Rogers v Rogers delivers lots of laughs, lots of pathos and lots of information, such that the viewer’s attention never wavers. None of this would have been possible without an extraordinary production design involving set, sound and lighting, and innovative use of video, both recorded and live. How fitting that the nasty story of Rogers Communications is brought to us through the very media the corporation was built on.
Rooney in rolled up shirtsleeves opens the play as Boswell, with a simple statement and a big red image on the screen: “The four-dollar tomato.” Say no more.
Boswell comes forward to ask the audience who might be familiar with the 1985 Canadian Competition Act. Only one hand goes up. He then offers a rapid-fire history of the competition laws, the competition tribunal and the government’s failure to stop massive corporate concentration in Canada. Without the use of the big screen hanging over the action, we might not have caught essential facts such as Canada’s ranking of 33 in a list of 34 countries in their ability to protect the consumer by ensuring competition among businesses.
Enter Edward Rogers, as Rooney dons jacket and tie. The benighted only son of Ted Rogers, he is overweight, abused by his father as weak and ruled out as heir to the family firm. Rooney also adeptly takes on the characters of Edward’s sisters Melissa, Melinda and Martha and their ruthless mother Loretta, Ted Rogers’ widow.
Rogers v. Rogers is fiction, but scenes such as Edward as a young man pouring water over all the pie servings at a formal dinner so he won’t be tempted to eat them, have a ring of truth.
Family squabbles where big money is at stake is an old story. Alcohol and other addictions usually play a part. Siblings sue each other or their parents, and so on. But the Rogers family feud involved a very public corporate play-by-play. Board meetings break down with expressions of personal vendettas. But Edward turns out to be a match for his father’s manipulative ways, enough to seize control without the board’s assent.
In Healy’s creation Matthew Boswell emerges as character who is no faceless bureaucrat, but a kind of tragic hero. I’m one of the thousands of disgruntled customers who paid the price that came with Rogers’ takeover of Shaw and for whom Rogers v. Rogers brings real catharsis.
The show is officially sold out to the end of its run on January 17, but you can add your name to the waiting list on the Crow’s website or try your luck at the Sunday matinee, which is pay-what-you-can.
Rogers v. Rogers
By Michael Healey
Until January 17, 2026 at Crow’s Theatre in Toronto
Supplied photo of Tom Rooney in Rogers v. Rogers




