ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Barry Chapman (Bell Mobility Inc.)

This page has been archived on the Web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, 7 May 2015

File number: 8665-C12-201212448

Mr. Barry Chapman
Vice President
Regulatory Affairs
Bell Mobility Inc.


Re: Wireless Code Implementation – Compliance Reports – Confirmation Required

Dear Mr. Chapman:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain confirmation that your company, Bell Mobility Inc. (Bell), has completed the necessary changes to its contracts, policies, and procedures to implement the Wireless Code (the Code).Footnote 1

Staff requests that Bell file a response to the concerns set out in more detail below by 22 May 2015. In this response, Bell should provide an answer as to whether, and when, Bell has taken the actions to come into full compliance with the Code as directed by the Commission in the 14 August 2014 letter.

This letter and all subsequent correspondence form part of a public record. As set out in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin 2010-961, Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedingsFootnote 2, Wireless Service Providers (WSPs) may designate certain information as confidential. WSPs must provide an abridged version of the document involved, accompanied by a detailed rationale to explain why the disclosure of the information is not in the public interest.

All submissions are to be made in accordance with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, SOR/2010-277.Footnote 3

Yours sincerely,


Nanao Kachi
Director, Social and Consumer Policy
Consumer Affairs and Strategic Policy

Information to be provided

Staff requests that Bell file a response by 22 May 2015 to provide an update as to whether the required change, detailed below, was implemented, and if so, when it was implemented.

Staff further requests that Bell provide a revised copy of your template contracts that demonstrate that the reference to restocking fees has been removed.

Trial period – Restocking fees

In section G. 4. of the Code, Contract cancellation and extension, the Commission required wireless carriers, including Bell, to provide a trial period to customers when they sign up for a new contract. Specifically:

“(iv) During the trial period, customers may cancel their contract without penalty or early cancellation fee...” [Emphasis added]

The contract sample you provided with your Wireless Code implementation report indicated that customers may have to pay a restocking fee if they avail themselves of the trial period.

In a letter dated 22 May 2014, Commission staff sought clarification on this point and asked Bell to explain how it considered that its approach was consistent with the requirement set out in the Wireless Code.

In a letter dated 29 May 2014, Bell replied that:

“While each of the Bell Entities' respective terms of service reference a potential device restocking fee being applicable when a customer returns their device during the trial period, none of the Bell-related companies actually charges such fee. Accordingly, the Bell Entities have consistently satisfied the trial period requirements set out in the Wireless Code since it took effect on 2 December 2013. Within the short timeframe that the Wireless Code has been in force, the Bell Entities have been gathering information to better determine what, if any, recovery costs may be associated with devices that are returned during the trial period. To the extent any of us may determine there is a need to recover underlying costs associated with device returns during the trial period, we would, of course, do so in a manner fully compliant with the Wireless Code's trial period requirements, including, by disclosing such a fee in plain language, with full transparency to each customer and by ensuring that any restocking fee is not punitive nor in any way representative of an early termination charge.” [Emphasis added]

In a letter dated 14 August 2014Footnote 4, the Commission directed Bell to:

Remove the reference to “restocking fees” during the trial period from your contracts (for Bell and Bell-related companies) and provide a revised copy of your template contracts.

In its reply, dated 22 August 2014, Bell stated that:

“The next scheduled update to our respective terms of service is 19 October 2014, at which time the reference to "restocking fees" will have been removed from each set of terms of service. Updating our respective terms of service in advance of 19 October 2014 presents significant technical and logistical hurdles...” [Emphasis added]


Footnote 1

Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2013-271,

Return to footnote 1

Footnote 2

Return to footnote 2

Footnote 3

Return to footnote 3

Footnote 4

Wireless Code Implementation – Compliance Reports – Action Required Letter

Return to footnote 4

Date modified: