'Rogers v. Rogers' at Crow's Theatre skewers the telecom giant — with one man playing the entire family

When my parents and I immigrated to Canada more than two decades ago, my parents signed up for a cellphone plan with the telecom giant. Soon, that cellphone plan turned into a cellphone + TV bundle, then a cellphone + TV + Wi-Fi super-bundle. 

To this day, my cellphone contract is still bundled with my parents’ because we can’t figure out how to separate the plans without all of our monthly fees skyrocketing to the moon.

We’ve paid dearly for that choice over the years. Hidden fees. Overage fees. What-the-heck-are-these fees. Poor customer service. No customer service. Oh, and how about those network outages? 

But all those headaches felt almost — almost — worth it as I watched “Rogers v. Rogers,” Michael Healey’s new satire at Crow’s Theatre that skewers Rogers and its executive chairman, Edward Rogers, and manages to vindicate all of us long-suffering Rogers customers along the way. 

“Skewers,” though, feels too soft of a verb to describe this public humiliation. Because “Rogers v. Rogers” doesn’t just skewer its subject. It also roasts him to a crisp on top of an open flame. 

I don’t think I’ve ever before seen such an unflattering stage portrayal of a real individual. Healey’s version of Edward is a klutz — stammering through his speech, gorging on McDonalds chicken nuggets and twirling in boardroom chairs with his feet hovering above the ground, like a bratty little boy who’s taken over daddy’s office. 

Is this portrayal cruel? Does it almost feel like bullying? Does it make Maggie Thatcher in “Billy Elliot” look like Mother Teresa? Yes. But it is damn fun. 

Healey’s play is inspired by the book of the same name, written by Globe and Mail reporter Alexandra Posadzki, who extensively covered the Rogers boardroom saga. This adaptation, like its source material, charts the telecom company’s tumultuous takeover of Shaw, along with the simultaneous “Succession”-esque drama that played out behind the scenes, spurred by Edward’s plan to oust CEO Joe Natale and install Tony Staffieri in his stead. 

The one-act play, however, plays fast and loose with the facts — often to brilliant, comic effect. As director Chris Abraham states right off the top, in a preamble presented on the TV screens that frame Joshua Quinlan’s set: This is not a piece of journalism, but instead of a piece of fiction. (The video designs are by Nathan Bruce.) 

If anyone’s perplexed as to how the Rogers saga could ever be turned into a stage satire, know that I was in the same boat, as well. But Healey is not one to be underestimated. He proved that much two years ago, when he adapted Josh O’Kane’s book about the Sidewalk Labs fiasco into his rip-roaring comedy “The Master Plan” — featuring, of all things, a walking, talking Norway maple as its narrator.

While “Rogers v. Rogers” may not plumb the same thematic depths as Healey’s previous work, nor scale the same humorous heights, it’s still a worthy new entry into the small but growing canon of ripped-from-the-headline satires. 

The brilliant coup in this work is that it’s a one-man show, with Tom Rooney playing all the characters, including every member of the Rogers family. And it culminates with a scene dramatizing the charged Zoom meeting in which Edward attempts to depose Natale and appoint Staffieri as CEO. 

With a slight change to his vocal inflection and the addition of a prop, Rooney jumps in and out of these various characters on a dime. His Edward is a jittery mess; Loretta, the Rogers family matriarch, continually puffs on a cigarette; sister Melinda, with a Valley girl pep, always holds a pen in her hand; and fellow sister Martha, a naturopath with a penchant for posting ill-advised tweets, is never without her red coffee mug. 

Bruce’s video designs, Imogen Wilson’s lighting and Thomas Ryder Payne’s sound, in lockstep with Rooney’s performance, help to create a dazzling, breathless scene that ranks among my favourite moments of the 2025 theatre season. 

But there’s another non-Rogers character I haven’t mentioned yet who plays a major role in Healey’s satire. It’s Matthew Boswell, Canada’s commissioner of competition, who tries to put the brakes on the Rogers-Shaw merger.

He’s a minor character in Posadzki’s book but the main protagonist in the play. And as played by Rooney, he’s the complete anthesis to Edward — an idealist driven by fairness, up against a man who’s powered by greed and hubris. 

Healey uses this character as a way to zoom out from the Rogers story. Sure, audiences may be coming to see a satire about Canada’s most prolific telecoms family, but Healey also has something to say about the state of Canada’s anti-competition laws and how the country is basically a patchwork of oligopolies — from our big banks to our airlines and our grocers. 

It’s certainly admirable how Healey attempts to stitch the family farce with a broader commentary about the Canadian economy. But it doesn’t entirely work.

In its current form, the play is front-loaded with a glut of information about both the Rogers saga and the country’s competition laws. While this background is necessary for audiences to understand what comes next, especially if they’ve not read the book, Healey could do more to integrate it with the rest of the narrative. Right now, by the time we arrive at a didactic scene explaining how Rogers’ dual-class share structures work, it starts to feel like a bit of a slog. 

Abraham does try to compensate for this, but occasionally goes overboard with his flashy production filled with cameras, digital floors and technical wizardry that at times looks like an empty-calorie Jamie Lloyd musical. 

It should come as no surprise, though, that Rooney is very good. “Rogers v. Rogers” is clearly written as a vehicle for a tour-de-force performance. But on opening night, he still left something to be desired. 

In some scenes, particularly when playing Boswell, Rooney seemed to let the play’s relentless narrative get ahead of him, stumbling through certain passages and quick transitions. I’m no doubt nitpicking here. But in a show whose comedic foundation is built on minute intonation changes and rapid-fire physical humour, these minor faults are amplified. 

There’s one performance, however, that Rooney absolutely lands. So unsympathetic, so scathing is his over-the-top portrayal of Edward Rogers, that it may finally compel me to cancel my Rogers subscription once and for all. Then maybe I’ll use those saving to buy another ticket and watch Rooney as Rogers all over again.