ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter addressed to Distribution List

This page has been archived on the Web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, 25 September 2015

File number: 8657-C12-201505505


To: Distribution List

Subject: Review of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS)

Dear Sir or Madam;

In Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation 2015-239 (the Notice), the Commission initiated a review of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (CCTS).  On4 June 2015, pursuant to paragraph 17 of the Notice, the Commission issued requests for information to various Telecommunications Service providers.  The responses to these requests for information were filed by 20 July 2015. 

After reviewing the record of this proceeding, Commission staff has concluded that there is a need for further information.  Accordingly, Commission staff requests that the telecommunications service providers identified on the distribution list respond to the attached requests for information.  Responses to these requests for information are to be filed with the Commission by 15 October 2015.

Procedural information 

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 proceedings, persons may designate certain information as confidential.  A person claiming confidentiality with respect to information submitted 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.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Antica Corner at 819-997-1334 or by email at

Yours sincerely,

Mary-Louise Hayward for
Nanao Kachi
Director, Social and Consumer Policy
Consumer Affairs and Strategic Policy

c.c.:   Antica Corner, CRTC
All interveners in Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-239 of 25 September 2015

Distribution list

All Communications Network of Canada Co.,
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership,
Bell Canada and Bell Mobility (Bell Mobility, Virgin Mobile, Solo),
Bragg Communications Incorporated (EastLink),  
Comwave Network Inc.,
Cogeco Cable Inc.,
Data & Audio Visual Enterprises Wireless Inc. (MOBILICITY),  
Distributel Communications Limited,
Globalive Wireless Management Corp. (WIND),
MTS Inc,
NorthernTel, Limited Partnership,
Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc.,
Rogers Communications Inc. and Rogers Wireless Partnership (including all of its mobile/wireless operations),   and
Saskatchewan Telecommunications,
Shaw Communications Inc.,
Teksavvy Solutions Inc.,
Télébec, Limited Partnership,
TELUS Communications Company,
Videotron G.P.,
Xplornet Communications Inc.,


Disputed portion of Bills

The tariffs for the general terms of service for CRTC regulated retail services provided protections to consumers in the case of disputed charges.  For example, Bell Canada General Tariff CRTC 67126, Item 100 - General, Article 17.3 – Payment Time Limit states: “No charge disputed by a customer can be considered past due unless the Company has reasonable grounds for believing that the purpose of the dispute is to evade or delay payment.” 

  1. For retail services that are forborne from rate regulation and not subject to a tariff, has your company instituted a similar policy?  Specifically, if customer makes a complaint to the company and/or the CCTS regarding a disputed charge, does your company suspend the due date for that charge or will your company consider the charge to be in arrears after the due date?
  2. If a customer sends a complaint regarding a disputed charge to the CCTS and your company has not suspended the due date for that charge, are there circumstances where the disputed charge would be referred to a credit agency before the dispute has been resolved?  If so, in what circumstances? 
  3. If a disputed charge was referred to a credit agency, does your company contact the credit agency, after the dispute is resolved, to remedy any damage to the customer’s credit rating that occurred during the period of the dispute?  If so, in what circumstances? 
  4. Provide samples of your retail contracts that support your answers to the above requests for information, identifying all relevant provisions.
Date modified: