ARCHIVED - Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-48-1
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
Ottawa, 19 July 2007
See also: 2007-48
Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules framework and the National Do Not Call List
Reference: 8665-C12-200601626, 8662-C131-200408543, 8662-F20-200409814, 8662-B48-200409228, 8662-A84-200410035
1. The Commission is issuing corrections to paragraphs 91 and 94 of the English version of Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules framework and the National Do Not Call List, Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-48, 3 July 2007 (Decision 2007-48). The corrections are highlighted in bold italic below.
2. Paragraphs 91 and 94 of the English version of Decision 2007-48 should read as follows:
91. The Commission considers that, pursuant to section 72.01 of the Act, it can find telemarketers liable for violations of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules made by the Commission pursuant to section 41 of the Act. The Commission further considers that, pursuant to section 72.02 of the Act, the Commission can find a client of a telemarketer liable for violations of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules made pursuant to section 41 of the Act provided there is an agency/mandatary relationship.
94. The Commission notes that section 72.02 of the Act allows it to hold a person liable for a violation of a prohibition or requirement of the Commission under section 41 of the Act that is committed by an employee, agent, or mandatary of the person. The Commission considers that if an employee, agent, or mandatary were to assist or facilitate a telemarketer in circumventing the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules, it could issue a notice of violation against the telemarketer, if appropriate.
This document is available in alternative format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site: www.crtc.gc.ca
- Date modified: