As we enter our 15th year of providing outstanding dispute resolution services to Canadian consumers and communications service providers, I am struck by the great strides we have made on many initiatives.
Throughout the 2021-22 fiscal year, we made significant progress on the CCTS’ strategic priorities. The current strategic priorities continue to be the right priorities for the CCTS and there is work ahead to implement plans and measure our performance in each of the strategic priority areas. As such, the Board of Directors extended the CCTS’ Strategic Plan to the end of the 2024 fiscal year. The extended Strategic Plan provides a more detailed update on how we have tackled each strategic priority and our next steps.
A significant focus for the Board this year was our strategic priority to enhance our service delivery to customers and service providers. Working with management, the Board and its Service Delivery Working Group undertook a thorough review of our complaint-handling processes, complaint fee model and other business processes like how we connect and engage with stakeholders. We also took steps to search for a new case management system to make our technology more accessible for customers, service providers, and staff. In early 2022, the Board approved changes to our complaint-handling processes and other business changes geared to making CCTS more effective and transparent in the execution of its mandate. The Board is now focused on overseeing implementation of the approved changes to our complaints process and a new case management system, which we are aiming to launch in mid-2023. Many of these changes came about with thoughtful input from a range of stakeholders including consumer advocacy groups, service providers, CRTC staff, and our employees. We are grateful for your contributions to improving our service delivery.
This year also included a change to our Board. In October of 2021, Geoff Batstone, one of our industry directors, retired from the Board. I want to thank him for his three years of dedicated service. I also want to welcome the newly elected director to this position, Geoff White, who assumed his duties in October.
On behalf of the CCTS’ Board of Directors, I want to extend our sincere appreciation to Commissioner Howard Maker, and the entire CCTS team for their hard work and dedication throughout the 2021-22 fiscal year. With their ongoing efforts, I am confident that the CCTS will continue to help Canadian consumers resolve their complaints in a fair manner and navigate stakeholders through our next chapter of exciting changes.
Catherine Aczel Boivie
Chair of the Board, CCTS
Commissioner’s Message
Annual Report
August 1, 2021 – July 31, 2022
The 2021-2022 year marked the continuation of work on our service delivery project – the most significant modernization effort in our history.
We will be undergoing significant change over the coming year. We are changing our complaints process with the objective of delivering a more effective, efficient, and transparent process that is streamlined to get complaints resolved more quickly and to enhance our value to our stakeholders. We are also improving transparency through our reporting and ensuring consumer awareness through engagement with consumer groups. We are also undertaking a significant technology transformation to help us improve operational efficiency and our ability to adapt to fluctuating complaint volumes. We aim to launch these new processes and technologies by mid-2023.
We’ve also started to implement various activities that are part of our stakeholder engagement strategy. As part of our initiative to have more formalized and proactive consultations with a range of stakeholders, in February of 2022 we launched the Consumer Advisory Panel. The Panel, which will meet twice each year, engaged nine consumer advocacy groups to discuss key topics such as the needs of vulnerable, disadvantaged and hard-to-reach consumers.
Accessibility of the CCTS complaints process to customers with disabilities remains an objective for the CCTS. In June of 2022, we held consultations with participants from five accessibility groups, during which we heard that the biggest hurdle for the accessibility community is the lack of awareness of the CCTS. Concerns about broad public awareness of the CCTS by all Canadians have been clearly expressed to us and we have launched a project to review and revisit all of our public awareness activities – as well as those of our Participating Service Providers.
We want Canadians to know that we are here to help in the event of an unresolved dispute with a service provider. In this report, we provide case summaries which help tell the story of the work we do every day. They provide a lens into understanding the kinds of individual complaints that we hear and highlight the outcomes we help facilitate to ensure that a customer has been treated fairly and that providers are held accountable when appropriate. I am very proud that we continue to help resolve almost 90% of complaints, often at the early stages of our processes – even through this incredibly busy time of significant change.
In May of 2022, the Government of Canada proposed a policy direction to the CRTC on telecom competition, affordability, consumer rights and universal access. The proposed policy speaks of strengthening the role of the CCTS, and we submitted a formal response in July. We look forward to the finalization of the policy direction and its impact on us and our role.
Throughout all of these events, the COVID-19 pandemic has required us to maintain our safe work-from-home model. However, as the situation normalizes, we are transitioning to a hybrid work model and we look forward to the collaboration opportunities this model will facilitate. We will continue to support our staff and their work, no matter whether they are working in the office or remotely. In the face of this upcoming change along with ongoing and new initiatives, the constant has been the commitment of our amazing staff. They’ve worked tirelessly to ensure that the CCTS continues to provide outstanding dispute resolution services for Canadian consumers and service providers. Thank you all so very much for your hard work and dedication.
Howard Maker
Commissioner & CEO, CCTS
Year at a Glance
Annual Report
August 1, 2021 – July 31, 2022
This section provides an overview of significant events and data points for the CCTS in 2021-22.
By the numbers
Successful resolutions
88% of concluded complaints were successfully resolved.
Complaints down
Complaints decreased by 25% compared to last year.
Top issues
While billing problems were the number oneissue for the wireless and TV customers, service delivery problems were the top issue for internet and phone customers.
Industry-wide participation
431 brands operated by 313 service providers participate in the CCTS.
Performance levels
235 brands had ZERO complaints. Another 118 had 3 complaints or less.
Investigations required
25% of concluded complaints required an investigation.
Total issues
29,374 issues were raised in 12,669 concluded complaints.
Complaints distribution
83% of complaints were filed against 10 service providers.
Launched the CCTS twice-yearly Consumer Advisory Panel with a diverse set of consumer groups across Canada and continued our consultations with accessibility groups
Engaged in many comprehensive consultations and meetings with stakeholders, particularly regarding business process changes related to the CCTS service delivery review
Approved changes to the CCTS complaint-handling process to improve service delivery to stakeholders, which will be implemented in 2023 with CCTS’ technology transformation
Welcomed 24 new service providers to the CCTS
Monitored the Rogers’ national service outage, informed customers about their right to recourse and prepared to assist with related complaints[1]
Who We Are and What We Do
Annual Report
August 1, 2021 – July 31, 2022
Our mandate
The CCTS is Canada’s national and independent organization dedicated to resolving customer complaints about telecommunications and television distribution services. We work with consumers, small businesses and participating Canadian service providers to resolve disputes about most telecom and subscription TV services after direct communications between a customer and a service provider have proven ineffective.
We can help with most types of problems between a customer and service provider, including disputes about contracts, billing, service delivery and credit management.
Overview of who we are and what we do
“I was incredibly impressed by the professional, informative and speedy response from the CCTS and the follow up to ensure my complaint had been satisfactorily addressed.”
This section provides a broad overview of this year’s complaint data. Additional detailed analysis follows throughout the report. For definitions of the terms used in this section, see the Glossary of Terms.
About our data
We report on the complaints that were accepted between August 1, 2021 and July 31, 2022 (our fiscal year) as well as on the complaints that were concluded between those dates.
The complaints we receive and investigate after July 31, 2022 will be reported in next year’s Annual Report.
NOTE: A single complaint may raise more than one issue.
To ensure the accuracy of the statistics we report, we audit the data throughout the year.
Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Operational statistics
Table 5.1: Summary of operational statistics
wdt_ID
Measurement
2021-22 number
2021-22 YoY change
1
Complaints accepted
12,790
-25%
2
Complaints concluded
12,669
-28%
3
Complaints resolved
11,108
-28%
4
Complaints resolved at pre-investigation
8,670
-31%
5
Complaints resolved at investigation
2,438
-18%
6
Complaints closed
1,557
-23%
7
Complaints closed at pre-investigation
808
-16%
8
Complaints closed at investigation
749
-30%
9
Recommendations accepted
4
33%
10
Decisions issued
0
-100%
Table 5.2: Leading complaint issues broken down by service type
wdt_ID
Service
Billing
Contract dispute
Service delivery
Credit management
Total
1
Wireless
6,230
4,934
2,931
792
14,887*
2
Internet
2,732
2,016
2,878
313
7,939
3
TV
1,379
894
925
129
3,327
4
Local phone
1,052
828
1,070
106
3,056
5
Other†
72
38
51
4
165
8
Total
11,465
8,710
7,855
1,344
29,374
* The number of issues is higher than the number of complaints accepted because a single complaint may raise more than one issue.
† Other includes long distance and operator services issues. There were no complaints about directory assistance or white pages directories in 2021-22.
The largest number of complaint issues were related to wireless services, which accounts for the highest proportion of issues across all four categories (billing, contract dispute, service delivery and credit management). Notably, for the first time since 2017-18, wireless services surpassed internet services for the largest number of service delivery issues.
Of the main categories of issues (billing, contract dispute, service delivery and credit management), billing issues were the top issue for wireless, TV and Other service types. Billing issues remained the top issue but decreased by 30% overall this year. Service delivery issues were the top issues for internet and local phone service type.
Overall, there was a decrease in issues raised across all main categories of issues for all service types.
Code of Conduct Reporting
Annual Report
August 1, 2021 – July 31, 2022
When the CCTS investigates customer complaints about telecom and TV services, we try to determine if the service provider has reasonably met its responsibilities to the customer.
Overview of CRTC codes of conduct
We use four mandatory CRTC codes of conduct as yardsticks against which we measure service provider conduct:
Wireless Code: For consumer and small business (mobile) wireless services.
Deposit & Disconnection (D&D) Code: For residential home phone services.
Television Service Provider (TVSP) Code: For residential subscription TV services.
Internet Code: For all retail fixed internet access services, including cable, fibre, digital subscriber line (DSL), fixed wireless and satellite services provided by Canada’s ten largest internet service providers and their brands and affiliates. Mobile wireless internet services are covered by the Wireless Code.
To learn about how we administer the CRTC codes of conduct, watch the video below.
For more detailed information about the preceding codes, see:
Resolving complaints and analyzing code compliance
When we accept a customer complaint, we record and track all of the issues raised in the complaint. Some complaints raise questions about whether a provider has complied with a code of conduct. We call these “alleged breaches.”
The vast majority of complaints are resolved to the satisfaction of the customer and the provider at an early stage of our process. When complaints are resolved, there is no need for us to investigate the underlying issues, including to determine if there have been any violations of a code of conduct. Therefore, these issues remain characterized as “alleged breaches” and are categorized as “not requiring investigation” in the following figures.
In the cases that we do investigate, we can determine whether there has been a violation. We categorize proven violations as “confirmed breaches.” When we investigate and determine that there has not been a violation, we categorize this as “no breach.”
In this section, we present statistical reports on breaches of the four applicable codes using the preceding terminology.
Wireless Code
The Wireless Code seeks to ensure that consumers of voice and data services are better informed of the rights and obligations contained in their contracts. The Wireless Code applies to individual and small business consumers, and all wireless service providers must follow its guidelines.
Figure 6.1: Summary of Wireless Code breaches
Table 6.1: Wireless Code confirmed breaches by section
wdt_ID
Code section
# of confirmed breaches
% of total confirmed breaches
YoY change
1
A. Clarity
8
12.3
-42.9
2
A.1. Plain language
8
12.3
-42.9
3
A.2. Prices
0
0.0
4
A.3. Unlimited services
0
0.0
5
B. Contracts and related documents
15
21.9
-48.3
6
B.1.(i-ii) Permanent copy of the contract and related documents
2
3.1
-85.7
7
B.1.(iii) a-e Key contract terms and conditions
12
18.5
-7.7
8
B.1.(iii) f-m Other aspects of the contract
1
1.5
-50.0
9
B.2. Prepaid service contracts
0
0.0
10
C. Critical Information Summary
14
21.5
-48.1
There were 65 confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code, a decrease of 32% from last year.
The majority of confirmed breaches relate to disclosure issues stemming from lack of clarity or accurate information in communications with customers, information in and provision of contracts and related documents, and the Critical Information Summary.
This year, there were 8 confirmed breaches of Section A (Clarity), compared to 14 last year. The main issue was wireless service providers failing to communicate with customers clearly.
Confirmed breaches of Section B (Contracts and related documents) and Section C (Critical Information Summary) each decreased by 48% this year, together accounting for 43% of all confirmed breaches. Notably, we confirmed 12 breaches for failure to provide the required key contract terms in the customer’s contract and 14 breaches for failure to provide all the required information in the Critical Information Summary.
Of note, Section I (Disconnection) became the most breached section of the Wireless Code this year, up by 58% this year and accounting for 29% of all confirmed breaches. Notably, there were seven confirmed breaches to Section I.1 (when disconnection is allowed to occur), compared to one confirmed breach last year. A major issue continues to be whether wireless providers are providing sufficient notice of disconnection or providing all of the required information in the disconnection notice, with 12 confirmed breaches for Section I.2.
Table 6.2: Wireless Code confirmed breaches by service provider
wdt_ID
Breach
Bell
Rogers
Fido
TELUS
Virgin
Koodo
Freedom Mobile
Videotron
Shaw
Total
1
# of confirmed breaches
6
7
5
8
11
8
12
3
5
65
2
% of all confirmed breaches
9.2%
10.8%
7.7%
12.3%
16.9%
12.3%
18.5%
4.6%
7.7%
100%
3
YoY change
-79.3%
-72.0%
-44.4%
0.0%
83.3%
100.0%
140.0%
-50.0%
66.7%
-32.3%
4
Section A. Clarity
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
1
8
5
Section B. Contracts and related documents
0
0
2
1
2
4
4
1
1
15
6
Section C. Critical Information Summary
0
0
1
1
2
4
4
1
1
14
7
Section D. Changes to contracts and related documents
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
4
8
Section E. Bill management
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
9
Section F. Mobile device issues
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
Section G. Contract cancellation and extension
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
3
Freedom Mobile, Koodo, Virgin Plus and Shaw saw an increase in confirmed Wireless Code breaches this year. Freedom Mobile had the largest proportion (19%) of confirmed breaches.
Bell and Rogers saw a significant decrease in confirmed Wireless Code breaches this year. Bell had 6 confirmed breaches this year, compared to 29 last year. It now accounts for 9% of all confirmed Wireless Code breaches, compared to 30% last year. Rogers had 7 confirmed breaches this year, compared to 25 last year. It now accounts for 11% of all confirmed breaches, compared to 26% last year.
Internet Code
The Internet Code was created so that customers of fixed internet access services are better informed of their rights and responsibilities contained in their contracts with internet service providers (ISPs). The Internet Code aims to make it easier for individual customers to understand their internet service contracts, to prevent bill shock from overage fees and price increases, and to make it easier for Canadians to switch internet service providers.
The Internet Code applies only to individual customers; it does not apply to small business customers.
The Internet Code applies only to large facilities-based ISPs and their brands and affiliates. However, when we investigate a complaint about an ISP to which the Internet Code does not apply, we may use the principles of the Code to guide us in determining what is good industry practice.
Figure 6.2: Summary of Internet Code breaches
There were 22 confirmed breaches of the Internet Code this year, up from 18 last year. The top confirmed breach areas were Section B (Contracts and related documents) with eight confirmed breaches (36% of Internet Code breaches), Section A (Clarity) with seven confirmed breaches (32%) and Section I (Disconnection) with five confirmed breaches (23%).
Table 6.3: Service providers governed by the Internet Code
Large facilities-based ISPs
Brands and affiliates of premium brand
Bell Canada
Bell Aliant
Bell MTS
Dryden Municipal Telephone System (DMTS)
Ebox Inc.
KMTS
Masktel
NorthernTel
Ontera
Telebec, Société en commandite
Virgin Plus
Cogeco Connexion Inc. (Ontario and Quebec)
No brands or affiliates
Eastlink
Amtelecom Limited Partnership
Northwestel Inc.*
No brands or affiliates
Rogers
Compton Communications
Fido
Seaside Communications
Source Cable
Sasktel
MaxTV™
Shaw
Freedom Mobile
TELUS
Mascon Cable
Videotron Ltd.
Fizz
Xplornet
Netset Communications
NOTE: This list is based on the information PSPs provide to the CCTS and this information is subject to change.
* Northwestel’s terrestrial retail internet services are regulated by the CRTC; therefore, customers should forward their complaint to the CRTC. However, Northwestel’s satellite retail Internet services are not regulated by the CRTC, so the CCTS can accept complaints about these services.
Table 6.4: Internet Code confirmed breaches by service provider
wdt_ID
Breach
Bell
Rogers
TELUS
Virgin
Videotron
Xplornet
Total
1
# of confirmed breaches
2
2
11
2
3
2
22
2
% of all confirmed breaches
9.1%
9.1%
50.0%
9.1%
13.6%
9.1%
100%
3
YoY change*
-85.7%
100.0%
N/A
100.0%
N/A
N/A
22.2%
4
Section A. Clarity
0
0
5
0
0
2
7
5
Section B. Contracts and related documents
1
0
6
0
1
0
8
6
Section C. Critical Information Summary
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
7
Section D. Changes to contracts and related documents
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
Section G. Contract cancellation and extension
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
Section I. Disconnection
1
2
0
2
0
0
5
TELUS had 11 confirmed breaches and accounts for half of the confirmed breaches to the Internet Code, up from zero last year. Six of these confirmed breaches were for failing to provide required information in contracts and related documents (Section B) and the remaining five were for lack of clarity in its communications with customers (Section A).
Videotron had three confirmed Internet Code breaches compared to zero last year.
Bell had 2 confirmed Internet Code breaches, down from 14 last year.
Rogers, Xplornet and Virgin Plus each had two confirmed breaches of the Internet Code.
Television Service Provider Code
The Television Service Provider Code (TVSP Code) is intended to make it easier for Canadians to understand their television service agreements and to empower residential customers in their relationships with TVSPs.
The TVSP Code applies to only consumers (not small businesses), and all licensed TV service providers must follow its guidelines. We address complaints about subscription TV services provided by cable, Internet Protocol television (IPTV) and national satellite direct-to-home (DTH) TV service providers.
Figure 6.3: Summary of TVSP Code breaches
There were nine confirmed breaches to the TVSP Code this year, up from five last year. Three breaches were about Section II (clarity of offers) and another three breaches were about Section IX (information required in the Critical Information Summary). Two breaches were about Section VII (provision of the written agreement and information required in the fixed-term agreement), and one breach was about Section X (changing programming options).
Table 6.5: TVSP Code confirmed breaches by service provider
wdt_ID
Breach
Bell
TELUS
Videotron
Shaw
Total
1
# of confirmed breaches
1
3
4
1
9
2
% of all confirmed breaches
11.1%
33.3%
44.4%
11.1%
100%
3
YoY change
-50.0%
N/A
100.0%
N/A
80%
5
Section II. Clarity of offers
1
1
1
0
3
6
Section VII. Fixed-term agreements
0
1
1
0
2
7
Section IX. Critical Information Summary
0
1
2
0
3
8
Section X. Changing programming options
0
0
0
1
1
Videotron had four confirmed breaches to the TVSP Code this year, up from two last year and accounting for 44% of all confirmed TVSP code breaches. This year two of these four confirmed breaches for Videotron were about not providing information required in the Critical Information Summary.
TELUS had three confirmed breaches to the TVSP Code this year, compared to none last year and accounting for 33% of all confirmed TVSP code breaches.
Deposit and Disconnection Code
The Deposit and Disconnection Code (D&D Code) provides local phone customers with protection in some cases when they are required to provide a deposit as a condition of obtaining local phone service or when a service provider intends to disconnect the customer’s local phone service.
There were two confirmed breaches to the D&D Code this year, down from five last year. There was one breach for each of Section 3.2 (notice at least 14 days prior to disconnection) and Section 3.3 (advise customer 24 hours prior to disconnection).
Figure 6.4: Summary of D&D Code breaches
Table 6.6: Deposit and Disconnection Code confirmed breaches by service provider
wdt_ID
Breach
Bell
Total
1
# of confirmed breaches
2
2
2
% of all confirmed breaches
100.0%
100%
3
YoY change
-33.3%
-60%
4
Section 3.2 Notice at least 14 days prior
1
1
5
Section 3.3 Advise customer 24 hours prior
1
1
The two confirmed breaches to the D&D Code this year were both from Bell, down from three last year for Bell.
Topics and Trends
Annual Report
August 1, 2021 – July 31, 2022
In 2021-22, Canadians filed 12,790 in-mandate complaints about their service providers, down 25% from last year.
Overview
This year’s data captures a second full year of Canadians living through the COVID-19 pandemic, which began midway through the CCTS’ 2019-20 Annual Report period.
The CCTS maintained a resolution rate of 88% for customer complaints in 2021-22. We resolve most complaints within 30 days at the earliest stage of our process; this year we resolved 75% of all complaints within 30 days.
For consumers, we are a neutral dispute resolution provider that can help level the playing field and provide binding outcomes. For providers, we provide information, data, and insights to help repair relationships and improve their customer relations. We are a third party that can facilitate resolutions to get the customer-provider relationship back on track in disputes that cannot be resolved. Sometimes, with the benefit of the information and evidence about the complaint details, we can confirm that the provider acted reasonably and fairly to the customer. Other times, as demonstrated by the below case summaries, customers involve us to hold the provider accountable where it should have been obvious to the provider that it needed to address or fix the issue.
Device locked to provider’s network
A customer filed a complaint in March of 2022 about their provider’s refusal to unlock their wireless device. The customer had purchased the device from the provider in December of 2019 and paid for the device in full at that time.
When the customer learned, in April of 2021, that their device was locked to their provider’s cellular network, they asked the provider to unlock their device, but the provider refused. The customer told us that the provider asked for proof of purchase for the device, which the customer promptly provided, but then received no response. The customer noted the CRTC requirement that providers offer unlocked devices after 2017.
After multiple requests that the provider unlock their device over the course of a year, the customer filed a complaint to the CCTS, expressing great frustration with their provider. The first step of our process is to send the complaint to the provider to try to resolve the issue. When we sent the complaint details to the provider, it unlocked the device within 30 days, resolving the complaint to the customer’s satisfaction.
Promised refund not honoured
A customer experienced ongoing wireless quality of service issues that impeded their ability to work from home over several months. The customer told us that they had been promised a refund for six months of service fees and a credit for monthly service fees going forward until their quality of service issue was resolved. The refund amount for six months of service, in the customer’s view, should have been over $672 plus tax. However, two months later, their provider still had not applied the six-month credit or future monthly credits while the quality of service issue persisted. The customer had made multiple calls to customer service explaining the promise of the refund without any result, at which point the customer submitted a complaint to the CCTS.
When we sent the complaint to the provider, the provider offered the customer a $100 credit. The provider’s position was that its service was not guaranteed, pursuant to its Terms of Service; therefore, the customer was not entitled to a credit. The customer did not accept this offer, insisting that they had previously been promised a refund for six months of service and an ongoing credit until the issue was resolved.
During our investigation, we reviewed a call recording of discussions between the customer and the provider about the service issues. We confirmed that the agent in the call offered a credit for six months of service and for three future months of service, totalling just over $925 plus tax. We determined that the provider failed to meet its obligations to the customer because it clearly failed to apply the promised credit amount. When we pointed this out to the provider, the provider agreed to refund the amounts promised. The customer accepted this resolution but pointed out that the provider processed the amount as a credit to their account, not a refund. The customer was unhappy with the credit as they were planning to leave their service provider. We followed up with the provider to ensure that the amount was refunded as promised.
“I found the CCTS to be a very well-run organization. They took my complaint seriously, went over all relevant information and were very helpful… Thank you for all your help.”
Issues raised in complaints
These 12,790 complaints raised 29,374 issues that fell within the CCTS mandate. A single complaint can contain multiple issues. For example, a customer may submit one complaint about both the billing of their internet service and that their wireless service is not working properly, which would be reported as two issues.
Wireless issues continue to be raised most often, representing 51% of all issues raised. Internet issues continue to be in second place, accounting for 27% of issues. The number of internet issues decreased by 40% since last year, which may reflect customers’ return to in-person work and learning.
Table 7.1: Number of issues by service type, YoY change
wdt_ID
Service
# of issues in 2021-22
% of all issues in 2021-22
# of issues in 2020-21
YoY change in # of issues raised
1
Wireless
14,887
51%
18,466
-19%
2
Internet
7,939
27%
13,202
-40%
3
TV
3,327
11%
5,153
-35%
4
Local phone
3,056
10%
5,012
-39%
5
Other
165
1%
421
-61%
6
Total
29,374
100%
42,254
-31%
Figure 7.1: Five-year view of issues by service type
NOTE: TV complaints were not in the CCTS mandate until September 1, 2017.
Spotlight on wireless
Wireless remains the most complained-about service even though the number of wireless issues declined by 19%.
Wireless issues account for 51% of all issues raised, up from 44% last year.
Wireless customers raised disclosure issues 18% less often than last year. However, disclosure continues to be the leading issue among wireless customers, accounting for 15% of all wireless issues. These disclosure issues are about customer concerns that information is not being fully or clearly provided.
Incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan remains the number two issue for wireless customers, accounting for 13% of all wireless issues raised.
Issues relating to wireless roaming charges are up by 130% from last year, returning to approximately the same level as before the pandemic.
Wireless device financing plan issues increased by a significant 142%. We discuss this issue and concerning trends below in a case summary and in Statistical Reports.
Issues relating to chargeable messages, which encompass both nationwide and international long-distance calls, increased by 39%.
Figure 7.2: Five-year view of wireless issues
Table 7.2: Top 10 wireless issues
Issue
Number
Proportion
YoY (%)
Disclosure issues
2,252
15%
-30%
Monthly price plan – Incorrect charge
1,873
13%
-25%
Quality of service
1,068
7%
-11%
Breach of contract
888
6%
-34%
Credit/refund not received
779
5%
-27%
Credit reporting
722
5%
-7%
Data charges
470
3%
-26%
Roaming charges
430
3%
130%
Chargeable messages (long distance calls)
376
3%
39%
Device or equipment financing plan
343
2%
142%
Figure 7.3: Five-year view of internet issues
Spotlight on internet
Internet issues account for 27% of all issues raised.
The number of internet issues declined by 40% from last year. This is a significant decrease when compared to the 31% decrease in overall issues across all service types. Internet issues were raised 7,939 times, which is the lowest in the last five years.
Quality of service remains the top issue for internet customers, accounting for 17% of internet issues. However, the number of quality of service issues decreased by 46% from last year, which represents the most significant decline in internet issues.
Incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan is the number two issue, down 31% from last year and accounting for 13% of all internet issues.
Disclosure issues are in third place. Disclosure issues are down by 39% and account for 11% of all internet issues.
Table 7.3: Top 10 internet issues
Issue
Number
Proportion
YoY (%)
Quality of service
1,367
17%
-46%
Monthly price plan – Incorrect charge
1,023
13%
-31%
Disclosure issues
861
11%
-39%
Credit/refund not received
407
5%
-48%
Complete loss of service
374
5%
-28%
Breach of contract
370
5%
-56%
Legitimacy of early termination fee (ETF)
326
4%
-35%
Credit reporting
287
4%
-30%
Equipment charges
283
4%
-36%
Customer cancellation due date not kept/delayed
237
3%
-32%
Spotlight on TV
TV issues account for 11% of all issues raised.
The number of TV issues is down 35% from last year, decreasing for the third time in the last five years.
Incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan remains the leading issue raised by TV customers, accounting for 15% of all TV issues. The number of incorrect charge issues is down by 39% from last year.
Disclosure issues remain in second place, accounting for 14% of all issues. The number of disclosure issues decreased by 41% from last year.
Complete loss of service increased by 11% and accounts for 4% of all TV issues.
Figure 7.4: TV issues, year-over-year view
Table 7.4: Top 10 TV issues
Issue
Number
Proportion
YoY (%)
Monthly price plan – Incorrect charge
504
16%
-39%
Disclosure issues
460
14%
-41%
Quality of service
378
11%
-19%
Credit/refund not received
181
5%
-41%
Equipment charges
156
5%
-35%
Complete loss of service
130
4%
11%
Credit reporting
123
4%
-39%
Breach of contract
122
4%
-52%
Customer cancellation due date not kept/delayed
105
3%
-34%
Legitimacy of early termination fee (ETF)
104
3%
-9%
Figure 7.5: Five-year view of phone issues
Spotlight on phone
Local phone service (landlines) accounts for 10% of all issues.
The number of phone issues is down 39% from last year and decreasing for the third time in the last five years.
Incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan remains the number one local phone issue, accounting for 13% of all local phone issues and down 41% from last year.
Quality of service is the number two local phone issue, accounting for 10% of all local phone issues and down 28%.
Table 7.5: Top 10 phone issues
Issue
Number
Proportion
YoY (%)
Monthly price plan – Incorrect charge
401
13%
-41%
Quality of service
313
10%
-28%
Disclosure issues
283
9%
-46%
Complete loss of service
192
6%
-21%
Legitimacy of early termination fee (ETF)
154
5%
-46%
Unable to port
138
5%
-24%
Credit/refund not received
130
4%
-41%
Breach of contract
113
4%
-53%
Credit reporting
99
3%
-17%
Customer cancellation due date not kept/delayed
91
3%
-49%
Breakdown of issues across all service types
Just like last year, disclosure issues continue to be the top issues raised by all customers, followed by complaints about incorrect billing of their monthly price plans.
Table 7.6: Top 10 issues across all service types
wdt_ID
Issue
Number
Proportion
YoY change
Wireless
Internet
TV
Phone
1
Disclosure Issues
3,865
13%
-36%
58%
22%
12%
7%
2
Monthly price plan - Incorrect charge
3,832
13%
-31%
49%
27%
13%
10%
3
Quality of service
3,134
11%
-33%
34%
44%
12%
10%
4
Credit/refund not received
1,499
5%
-37%
52%
27%
12%
9%
5
Breach of Contract
1,497
5%
-45%
59%
25%
8%
8%
6
Credit reporting
1,235
4%
-18%
58%
23%
10%
8%
7
Complete loss of service
960
3%
-20%
26%
39%
14%
20%
8
Legitimacy of early termination fee (ETF)
921
3%
-29%
36%
35%
11%
17%
9
Equipment charges
726
2%
-32%
33%
39%
21%
6%
10
Customer cancellation due date not kept/delayed
667
2%
-34%
34%
36%
16%
14%
“I am quite certain my complaint would not have been resolved without the involvement of the CCTS. Thanks!”
Disclosure issues
Customers often have concerns about information not being fully or clearly provided. Disclosure continues to be the leading issue raised (3,865 times this year).
Disclosure issues account for 13% of all issues raised across all service types.
Figure 7.6:Five-year view of disclosure issues
The lack of clear disclosure is the top issue raised by wireless customers and is either the number two or number three issue for internet, TV and phone customers. Disclosure issues are raised disproportionately by wireless customers. Although wireless customers account for 51% of all issues raised, they account for a disproportionate 58% of disclosure issues.
Figure 7.7: Disclosure issues by type of service
Of the top 10 service providers for disclosure issues, most saw a decrease in these issues from last year. Bell saw a significant 49% reduction in the number of disclosure issues but still accounts for the highest proportion: 20% of all disclosure issues, down from 25% last year. TELUS saw an increase in disclosure issues (4% increase).
Table 7.7: Disclosure issues – Top 10 service providers
wdt_ID
Service provider
2021-22
YoY change
Proportion of disclosure issues
Proportion of all issues
Disclosure resolution rate*
1
Bell
751
-49%
19%
20%
87%
2
Rogers
657
-30%
17%
16%
89%
3
Fido
455
-20%
12%
9%
93%
4
Videotron
418
-46%
11%
7%
98%
5
TELUS
362
4%
9%
9%
92%
6
Virgin Plus
300
-33%
8%
7%
88%
7
Freedom Mobile
212
-24%
5%
5%
94%
8
Shaw
191
-46%
5%
5%
91%
9
Koodo
173
-4%
4%
5%
91%
10
Cogeco
45
-37%
1%
1%
91%
* The disclosure resolution rate was 91%.
The number one disclosure issue is contract conflicts with agreement, which concerns a conflict or mismatch between what a customer has agreed to purchase and what their contract indicates. This type of disclosure issue accounts for 77% of disclosure issues, up from 75% last year.
The number two disclosure issue is a lack of full disclosure about promotions; for example, when a customer is not advised that a promotional discount on their monthly price plan will only be applied for the first three months of their 12-month contract. Lack of full disclosure about promotions accounts for 10% of all disclosure issues, down from 12% last year.
Table 7.8: Types of disclosure issues, broken down by service type
wdt_ID
Issue
Wireless
Internet
TV
Phone
Long distance
Total
Proportion of all disclosure issues
1
Contract conflicts with agreement
1,715
676
351
237
9
2,988
77%
2
Details of promotion not fully disclosed
265
74
40
20
0
399
10%
3
Service provider’s right to make unilateral changes
142
70
46
25
0
283
7%
4
Plan eligibility requirements not properly disclosed
61
11
7
1
0
80
2%
5
Contract not provided in format requested (paper, electronic or accessible) at no charge
35
27
13
0
0
75
2%
6
Changes requested during trial period not implemented
34
3
3
0
0
40
1%
7
Total
2,252
861
460
283
9
3,865
100%
Contract conflicts with agreement
Of all disclosure issues raised, 77% are the result of a conflict or mismatch between what the customer believes they agreed to purchase (often orally) and what is indicated in their contract, which is sent to them after the transaction occurred. This type of disclosure issue was raised 2,988 times – 57% of the time by wireless customers, 23% by internet customers.
Of the 2,988 times this issue was raised, 92% was after the customer had entered into an agreement at a distance, either over the phone or online. The remaining 8% of this issue occurred when the customer agreed to their contract in store.
Figure 7.8: Contract conflicts with agreement issues by type of service
The top three service providers with this type of disclosure issue are Bell (20%), Rogers (17%) and Fido (11%).
Table 7.9: Disclosure – Contract conflicts with agreement: Top 3 service providers
Service provider
Number of times issue was raised
Proportion of issue
Bell
602
20%
Rogers
516
17%
Fido
339
11%
Monthly service charge does not match agreement
A customer submitted a complaint to the CCTS about a mismatch of the monthly service fee they agreed to and the price they were being charged. The customer also said there was a mismatch in the amount of data included in their month-to-month wireless plan. The customer told us that they had agreed, during a phone call, to a $25 per month plan with 25 GB of data at 4G LTE speeds, after which the customer could continue to use data at a reduced speed. Instead, the provider billed $40 per month and reduced the speed after 2 GB of monthly data usage. The provider told us it did not have a $25 per month plan that included 25 GB; its plan was $40 per month for 25 GB of data.
During our investigation, we discovered that the provider had not sent the customer a copy of the contract or Fair Use Policy, which was a breach of the Wireless Code. We requested a copy of the call recording for the sales transaction to confirm what was agreed to, but the provider was not able to produce it. The customer, however, provided a recording of the sales call when the agreement was reached. We found that during the call, the customer and the provider agreed to a wireless plan for $25 per month with a monthly data allotment of 25 GB. The provider did not inform the customer that the 25 GB allotted to the account was only for data used within the provider’s network coverage area, and that data use on its extended nationwide network would be subject to a 2 GB cap.
After we sent a copy of the call recording to the provider, it offered to honour the $25 per month plan going forward and apply credits for the difference that was previously billed. To address its non-disclosure that the 25 GB was only for data used within the provider’s coverage area, it also offered to apply a credit of $150 to the customer’s account, the equivalent of six months of service fees at the $25 rate. The customer was not satisfied by this offer as they wanted the provider to remove the 2 GB limit for the extended nationwide network data usage at 4G LTE speeds. However, we found the resolution presented by the provider to be fair and reasonable.
Mismatch between webchat agreement and contract
A customer submitted a complaint alleging that their service provider billed them more than they had agreed to for wireless services. The customer stated that, through a webchat, they had agreed to a voice, text and data wireless plan for $55 per month. They also said they were assured by the provider that the plan would remain at the $55 price forever.
However, when the customer received the first invoice, they noticed they had been charged $70 for the plan. They also stated that their contract reflected the monthly price plan of $70, which was not consistent with the chat discussion. The provider maintained that the customer was on a $70 per month plan.
During our investigation, we reviewed the chat transcript and found that the customer had agreed to a $55 per month wireless plan. We also found that the agent stated the rate would stay the same forever unless the customer changed their plan. When we pointed this out, the provider acknowledged that the agent made a mistake in saying the cost would stay the same forever and that the rate was $55 rather than $70. We found that the provider supplied inaccurate information to the customer, which is a breach of Section A.1(i) of the Wireless Code.
To resolve the complaint, we suggested that the provider honour the $55 rate for 24 months and refund the billed price difference to the customer. The provider agreed to do so, the customer was satisfied, and the complaint was resolved.
Key Message
When there is a dispute about what the customer agreed to, we ask the provider to demonstrate what the customer agreed to and that it is providing what the customer agreed to. If any changes were made to the agreement, the provider must also demonstrate that it had the right to make those changes and that it followed any requirements to make those changes (such as providing adequate notice).
Customers should thoroughly review their contracts and invoices soon after their receipt to confirm that these match the terms they agreed to with the provider. Customers should bring any discrepancies to their provider’s attention as soon as possible. Under the Wireless Code and Internet Code, customers have the right to cancel without penalty within the 15-day trial period (if their usage of the services stays within prescribed limits). Customers who self-identify as a person with a disability have a 30-day trial period under the Wireless Code, Internet Code, and TVSP Code.
We also strongly recommend that providers provide adequate training and coaching to their agents to ensure that accurate information is provided to customers.
Lack of disclosure about promotions
Another common disclosure issue occurs when the provider neglects to provide the customer with necessary information about promotions. This accounts for 10% of all disclosure issues down from 12% last year. Wireless customers disproportionately raised this issue 66% of the time, up from 56% last year.
Bell recorded the largest number of these issues the previous two years but has now been surpassed by Rogers and Fido. Rogers accounts for 19% of these issues, while Fido now accounts for 17%, up from 12% last year. Bell customers raised this issue less often this year, accounting for 16% of issues arising from lack of disclosure about promotions, down from 20% last year and 40% the year before.
Table 7.10: Disclosure – Promotion details: Top 3 service providers
Service provider
Number of times issue was raised
Proportion of issue
Rogers
77
19%
Fido
66
17%
Bell
65
16%
“Amazing service from the CCTS, and amazing results. Thank you so much for being there to support customers!”
Breach of contract
In the course of providing service to customers, providers are required to follow their own terms of service, agreements with customers and any specific offers they have made to a customer. We classify any alleged failure by a provider to do so as a “breach of contract”.
Breach of contract is the number two contract dispute issue, accounting for 17% of all contract dispute issues, down from 21% last year.
Like last year, wireless customers account for a disproportionate number of breach of contract issues. While wireless services account for 51% of all issues raised, they account for 59% of breach of contract issues. Despite a decline of 45% in breach of contract issues across all service types, there was only a 34% decrease in breach of contract issues for wireless services. This is the smallest decrease for this issue across all service types, highlighting that breach of contract issues continue to be an issue faced by wireless consumers.
Complaints about internet account for 25% of all breach of contract issues, down from 31% last year.
Figure 7.9: Breach of contract issues by service type
Bell has the most breach of contract issues, accounting for 20% of all breach of contract issues, down from 22% last year. While most providers saw a decline in this issue, TELUS experienced an increase and now accounts for 11% of this issue, up from 6% last year.
Table 7.11: Breach of contract issues – Top 3 service providers
Service provider
Number of times issue was raised
Proportion of issue
Bell
301
20%
Rogers
208
14%
TELUS
161
11%
Customer unclear about early termination fees
In May of 2021, a customer obtained a new wireless device from their service provider. The device cost was $2,200, which was split into a “device discount” of $715 and a “device bonus” of $1,485. The service agreement stated that the customer was to pay $29.79 per month toward their device discount for 24 months (total of $715, after which the device balance would be reduced to $0). While the device discount appeared on each invoice, the device bonus did not. The customer believed that if they chose to move to another provider, they would be required to pay off only the remaining device discount.
Based on this understanding, after 6 months the customer decided to transfer their service to a new provider, effectively terminating the 24-month agreement. The customer did not discuss the fee implications of early cancellation with their provider before cancelling. The customer was then surprised to receive an invoice that included early termination device charges of $1,577.06, which was the remaining balance of the device discount and device bonus. After attempts to resolve the dispute with their service provider were unsuccessful, the customer contacted the CCTS.
We reviewed the service agreement that was provided to the customer and noted that the device discount and device bonus were clearly outlined on the first page of the agreement. The agreement showed that the device discount of $715 would be payable by the customer in 24 monthly installments of $29.79. It also showed that the device bonus of $1,485 would be reduced by $61.88 per month over 24 months, but it would not be invoiced to the customer. Rather, this device bonus would reduce the high cost of the device for the customer over 24 months. The agreement explained that upon early cancellation, any remaining device discount and remaining device bonus become payable immediately.
We determined that the provider had met its obligations by explaining in the agreement how early cancellation charges would be calculated and when they would apply. We explained our findings to the customer, and they agreed to close their complaint although they did not like the provider’s device financing plan.
Key Message
We are concerned by the troubling trend of increased issues about wireless device financing plans (142% increase this year). We will continue to track and monitor this issue, as required by the CRTC. Service providers offer device financing plans to help lower the high cost of wireless devices to consumers by spreading the cost into monthly instalments over a fixed term. Device financing plans are increasingly complicated, with different components such as a monthly device subsidy, device discounts or device bonuses, and may contain conditions such as a requirement to bring the device back to the provider at the end of the term. While device financing plans are permitted under the Wireless Code, these agreements are complex, and consumers are often surprised at the early termination fee they are required to pay when they terminate early.
Given the complexity of device financing plans and their components, we suggest that providers explore simpler ways of explaining to customers how their device subsidies work, to avoid confusion and future complaints. Providers should also train their representatives to be able to accurately explain cancellation scenarios and the calculation of early termination fees if a customer inquires.
We strongly recommend that customers explore cancellation scenarios before entering into an agreement. Asking for an example of how an early termination fee would be calculated would be informative. Consumers should also carefully review their device financing plan agreements.
Billing issues
Billing issues account for 39% of all issues raised and decreased for the third straight year.
Consumers are feeling the impacts of global inflation, particularly through the rising cost of living. In many complaints about billing issues, customers told us about their struggles to make ends meet and to make every dollar count. Some customers tell us about particularly challenging and vulnerable situations, such as living on a fixed income or bankruptcy. This context may factor into their complaints and may contribute to their request for compensation or a credit as part of their desired resolution.
Figure 7.10: Five-year view of billing issues
This year, there was a significant shift in the proportion of billing complaints about wireless services. Wireless services now account for 54% of billing issues, up from 46% last year. There was also a disproportionate decline in billing issues for wireless customers. While overall billing issues decreased by 30%, billing issues for wireless customers decreased by only 17%.
Internet services account for 24% of billing issues, down from 27% last year, and TV accounts for 12% of billing issues, down from 14% last year.
Figure 7.11: Billing issues by service type
Bell accounts for the highest proportion of all billing issues (20%, down from 23% last year). The number of billing issues raised by Bell’s customers decreased by 38%. Of the top 10 service providers for billing issues, only Koodo saw an increase in billing issues.
Table 7.12: Billing issues – Top 10 service providers
wdt_ID
Service provider
2021-22
YoY change
Proportion of billing issues
Proportion of all issues
Billing resolution rate*
1
Bell
2,295
-38%
20%
20%
83%
2
Rogers
1,800
-29%
16%
16%
87%
3
Fido
1,150
-15%
10%
9%
91%
4
TELUS
1,112
-3%
10%
9%
89%
5
Videotron
1,009
-43%
9%
7%
95%
6
Virgin Plus
859
-15%
7%
7%
85%
7
Koodo
666
4%
6%
5%
90%
8
Freedom Mobile
575
-27%
5%
5%
93%
9
Shaw
376
-50%
3%
5%
84%
10
Bell Aliant
156
-31%
1%
1%
92%
* The billing resolution rate was 88%.
Incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan is the number one billing issue, accounting for 33% of all billing issues. Credit/refund not received is at number two, accounting for 13%.
It’s noteworthy that issues relating to chargeable messages (long distance charges) increased by 26% and entered the list of top 10 billing issues for the first time in at last four years.
Table 7.13: Top 10 billing issues
Issue
Number
Monthly price plan – Incorrect charge
3,832
Credit/refund not received
1,499
Equipment charges
726
Regular price increase of monthly price plans
525
Final bill charges after cancellation
500
Data charges
470
Chargeable messages (long distance)
445
Roaming charges
430
Late-payment fees
423
Invoices not received
423
Incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan
Thirty-three percent of all billing issues are about customers being charged incorrectly for their monthly price plans. This issue was raised 3,832 times, making it the top billing issue, accounting for 33% of billing issues. It is also the number two issue overall, accounting for 13% of all issues raised across all types of service.
Wireless services account for 49% of incorrect charge issues, up from 45% last year. Internet remains at 27%, and TV accounts for 13%, down from 15% from last year.
Figure 7.12: Incorrect charge to monthly price plan by service type
The top three service providers with billing issues related to incorrect charges to monthly price plans are the same as last year: Bell, Rogers and Videotron.
Table 7.14: Incorrect charge to monthly price plan by service type – Top 3 service providers
Service provider
Number of times issue was raised
Proportion of issue
Bell
825
22%
Rogers
657
17%
Videotron
413
11%
Device paid off but monthly fee remains the same
In November of 2019, a customer agreed to a 24-month term for wireless services with a device financing plan for a new wireless device. Under the agreement, the monthly service fee was $115, with $40.21 of this amount going toward the device balance each month.
In April 2022 the customer noticed that their monthly fee had not been reduced by the amount of the device payment even though the device had been paid in full as of October 2021. The customer requested reimbursement of the portion of their monthly fee that they considered to be an overcharge for the previous five months: approximately $200 plus tax. When the service provider refused, the customer contacted the CCTS.
We reviewed the original service agreement, which stated that at the end of the term, the service would continue on a month-to-month basis, meaning the price would remain the same until the customer requested a change. On the invoice dated August 21, 2021, the customer was notified that the term would end on November 18, 2021, and that after the end of the term, service and billing would continue on a month-to-month basis until the customer made changes to their plan, switched providers or cancelled. According to these terms, the provider was not obligated to automatically reduce the monthly service fee by the device subsidy amount after the expiry of the fixed-term contract.
Based on the documentation provided, it was the customer’s responsibility to contact the provider at the end of the fixed-term contract to make changes to their monthly service fees. This is also permissible under the Wireless Code. The customer did not request a change until April 2022, five months after the expiry of the 24-month term.
After we explained that the provider had met its obligations, the customer agreed to close the complaint.
Key Message
When we investigate complaints alleging the incorrect charge of a monthly price plan, we review the rate to which the customer agreed, and we confirm that the billing matches this rate. If there is a mismatch between the bill and the price the customer agreed to, we ask the service provider to explain the reason for this discrepancy and why it believes it has the right to bill a different rate to ensure that the provider is acting reasonably.
Billing issues can stem from a lack of clear information, which may result in customer expectations not being met or suspicions of being incorrectly charged. We encourage customers to carefully read their agreements, which often provide explanations about what the customer will be billed at the expiry of a fixed-term agreement and whether the customer is required to take any action at the end of their term to adjust their monthly service rate.
Credit/refund not received
Concerns about not receiving a promised credit or refund are the number two billing issue. This issue accounts for 13% of all billing issues, down from 15% last year.
Wireless services account for the highest proportion of this issue with 52%, up from 45% last year. Wireless services also had a disproportionate decrease in this issue: despite a 37% decrease in credit/refund not received issues across all types of service, there was only a 27% decrease for wireless services.
Internet services account for 27%, down from 33% last year.
Figure 7.13: Credit or refund not received issues by service type
The top three providers for this issue are Bell, Rogers and Virgin Plus.
Table 7.15: Credit or refund not received – Top 3 service providers
Service provider
Number of times issue was raised
Proportion of issue
Bell
328
22%
Rogers
260
17%
Virgin Plus
148
10%
Credit balance on account not returned to customer
In November of 2021, a customer submitted a complaint stating they had been waiting for the refund of a credit balance on their cancelled account in the amount of $111 since February of 2021. The customer told us they contacted the service provider in April to update their address when they moved. The customer also said that they followed up with the provider several times afterwards and that the refund amount was not processed until November. The customer submitted a complaint to the CCTS on November 23, 2021 asking for additional compensation of $400 for the delay in receiving the refund, since they had spent several hours over several months contacting the provider with promises for follow up unanswered.
The provider told us that the refund cheque had been processed on November 22, 2021 after a significant delay due to an error updating the customer’s address. The customer confirmed that they received the refund cheque in December of 2021.
We reviewed the account notes, which showed the cancellation of service in early March of 2021 and the customer’s contact to update their address in April. We reviewed the call recording when the customer cancelled service. The provider’s account notes showed that the customer also called in September to inquire about the status of the refund and called again in November to inquire about the refund. At this point, the provider updated the customer’s address, processed the refund and apologized for the delay.
Our Procedural Code allows us to award appropriate compensation to a customer for any loss, damage or inconvenience. The provider offered to send an additional cheque for the equivalent of one month of service ($133) as a goodwill gesture in light of the significant delay in processing the original refund. The customer accepted this offer, and the complaint was resolved.
Key Message
When we investigate disputes about a credit or refund, we attempt to determine whether the provider owes the customer a credit or refund. It is helpful if customers can give us details about when they believe they were offered a credit or refund. If the provider owes a credit or refund, we ask the provider to demonstrate that it has provided that credit or refund. If it is not provided, the provider needs to demonstrate that it is allowed to withhold the credit or the refund. We encourage providers who receive complaints about unfulfilled credits or refunds to fully review their own records of interactions with the customer to help quickly resolve customer complaints.
Service delivery issues
Service delivery issues account for 27% of all issues this year.
Figure 7.14: Five-year view of service delivery issues
Wireless and internet services each account for 37% of service delivery issues. This is a disproportionately high amount of internet quality of service issues given that internet issues make up 31% of all issues raised. Wireless quality of service issues are up from 32% last year while internet quality of service issues are down from 43% last year.
Figure 7.15: Service delivery issues by service type
The top 10 service providers for service delivery issues all saw a decrease in complaints about this issue this year. Bell accounts for the most service delivery issues, with 20% of all service delivery issues; this is the same as last year.
Table 7.16: Service delivery issues – Top 10 service providers
wdt_ID
Service provider
2021-22
YoY change
Proportion of service delivery issues
Proportion of all issues
Service delivery resolution rate*
1
Bell
1,540
-30%
20%
20%
80%
2
Rogers
1,302
-15%
17%
16%
87%
3
TELUS
687
-19%
9%
9%
89%
4
Virgin Plus
450
-5%
6%
7%
83%
5
Shaw
434
-42%
6%
5%
85%
6
Fido
384
-16%
5%
9%
87%
7
Freedom Mobile
367
-38%
5%
5%
89%
8
Koodo
309
-4%
4%
5%
89%
9
Videotron
276
-35%
4%
7%
88%
10
Xplornet
226
-61%
3%
1%
77%
* The service delivery resolution rate was 85%.
The quality of service issue is the number one service delivery issue, accounting for 40% of all service delivery issues, down from 42% last year.
Complete loss of service is the number two service delivery issue, accounting for 12% of all service delivery issues, up from 11% last year.
Table 7.17: Top 10 service delivery issues
Issue
Number
Quality of service
3,134
Complete loss of service
960
Customer cancellation due date not kept/delayed
667
Install/activate due date not kept/delayed
575
Unable to cancel
538
Non-payment/collections
511
Unable to port
416
Service repair/loss due date not kept/delayed
366
Installation error
240
Seasonal suspension
89
“The CCTS representative was very professional, and the complaint was rectified in a timely manner.”
Service delivery issues
Quality of service
Customers raised concerns about the quality of their service over 3,100 times across all service types. It is the number one service delivery issue, accounting for 40% of all service delivery issues (down from 42% last year). The number of quality of service issues decreased by 33% this year.
Bell and Rogers account for the highest proportion of this issue among service providers at18% each (up from 17% and 15% respectively last year).
Table 7.18: Quality of service issues – Top 3 service providers
Service provider
Number of times issue was raised
Proportion of issue
Bell
570
18%
Rogers
557
18%
TELUS
276
9%
Forty-four percent (44%) of all quality of service issues are raised by internet customers. Although this is down from 55% last year, it continues to be the leading issue for internet customers.
Wireless services now account for 34% of quality of service issues, up from 26% last year.
The proportion of quality of service issues reported by TV and phone customers (12% and 10% respectively) is largely unchanged from last year.
Figure 7.16: Quality of service issues by service type
Service provider unable to demonstrate troubleshooting
A customer called their provider to report slow internet speeds. The customer had a package with speeds up to 8 Mbps. The customer stated that since the service was installed, several technicians came to their home and attempted to fix the issues but they continued to experience very slow speeds under 1 Mbps and noted similar issues for others in their neighbourhood. The customer asked to pay lower monthly service fees because they weren’t receiving the full speed offered by their current rate plan.
During our investigation, we asked the provider for its internal process for responding to customer service delivery issues. We also asked the provider to demonstrate it followed this process each time the customer reported a speed issue. While the provider demonstrated that a technician was sent to the customer’s home on each occasion, it was unable to provide account and technician notes. Therefore, the provider couldn’t demonstrate that the troubleshooting steps were completed.
We explored with the provider whether a lower-speed plan was appropriate for the customer. The provider confirmed that its 5 Mbps plan was the same price as the 8 Mbps plan to which the customer was subscribed, so the customer could not get a lower monthly service fee. When we pointed out that the provider could not demonstrate that it had followed its troubleshooting steps, the provider offered the customer a credit for two months of service ($58 per month). The customer accepted the offer of a credit for two months of service, and the complaint was resolved.
Customer experiencing slow internet speeds
A customer subscribed to internet service at speeds of up to 75 Mbps. However, they claimed to be receiving speeds of about 5 Mbps. The customer told us that they sent emails to their provider daily to dispute the speeds of service, but their provider did not respond to their emails and did not correct the speed issues. The customer then submitted a complaint to the CCTS asking for $5,000 in compensation.
When we sent a copy of the complaint to the provider, the provider reached out to the customer to troubleshoot their issue. The provider dispatched a technician and replaced the customer’s modem, but the customer decided to cancel their service.
During our investigation, we reviewed emails and screenshots of speed test results provided by the customer. We discovered that the customer’s emails to the provider were not reflected in the provider’s account notes because the customer was sending emails to unmonitored email addresses not intended for incoming messages for customer support.
The provider’s service agreement also stated that the services were not guaranteed and that the service speed was offered on an “up to” basis to signal that advertised speeds may not be reached. The provider’s Terms of Service also did not guarantee the service to be error free.
Since the customer had already cancelled their service with the provider, we were unable to determine whether changing the customer’s modem would have resolved the issue or whether the provider should explore if another plan was better suited for this customer. Since the customer never officially reported their issue to the provider, we found that the provider did not fail to meet its obligations to the customer since it was not aware that there was a problem to be fixed. We then explained our investigation steps and findings to the customer and closed the complaint.
Customer not informed of planned outage
A customer was experiencing intermittent service and complete outages of their internet service. When they called their provider, they received an automated message advising that upgrades were happening in the area and service interruption was expected. The customer’s service continued to be impacted regularly for two months.
The customer submitted a complaint to the CCTS because the upgrade work occurred during business hours, resulting in lost productivity for the customer, who worked from home and was unable to go into the office without hardship due to a disability. Furthermore, the customer said they did not receive prior notice of the upgrade work and were not given a timeline for when the work would start or finish.
We asked the provider for copies of its policies for upgrades and maintenance, and how customers are notified about planned service interruptions. The provider’s policy was to put door hangers on impacted customers’ doors, which provides notice and details about the planned interruption. The provider explained that work usually happens during business hours due to staff availability, city permits and for safety reasons. The customer claimed they did not receive a door hanger, their neighbours using the provider also did not receive a door hanger, and the provider was unable to demonstrate that the customer received a door hanger in accordance with its policy.
In our discussions with the provider, it offered a credit for one month of service ($250) which the customer accepted, and the complaint was resolved.
Key Message
Customers are expected to bring issues to their provider’s attention through appropriate support channels and allow the provider the opportunity to attempt to troubleshoot and resolve the issue. In turn, service providers are expected to act reasonably to address those issues, within the context of their troubleshooting policies.
When we receive complaints about quality of service issues, we ascertain what quality of service the customer ought to experience according to a provider’s service commitments or agreement, and we examine the evidence of the service levels the customer is experiencing. If the customer is not experiencing the service levels they should be receiving, the provider will need to correct this or provide appropriate redress to the customer.
Credit reporting issues
Credit management issues account for 5% of all issues and were raised 1,344 times this year. Although this represents a decrease of 20% from last year, the decrease is disproportionately lower than the overall 31% decline in issues, signalling that credit reporting issues continue to be a problem faced by many consumers.
Figure 7.17: Five-year view of credit management issues
Concerns about credit reporting are the leading type of credit management issue, representing 92% of all credit management issues reported.
Wireless customers account for 59% of all credit reporting issues, up from 51% last year. Even though wireless services experienced a decline in credit reporting issues, the decline is significantly lower than the decline for credit reporting issues across all service types. The decline for overall credit reporting issue was 19% while wireless service-related credit reporting issues declined by only 7% compared to last year.
Figure 7.18: Credit reporting issues by service type
Bell accounts for the highest proportion of credit reporting issues, accounting for 20% of all credit reporting issues and down from 21% last year. Rogers and TELUS remain second and third in credit reporting issues.
Table 7.19: Credit reporting issues – Top 3 service providers
Service provider
Number of times issue was raised
Proportion of issue
Bell
241
20%
Rogers
197
16%
TELUS
162
13%
Credit report related to an activation fee for service not activated
A customer sought to transfer their wireless service to a new service provider. Despite several attempts, the transfer process could not be completed due to technical issues. The customer decided to cancel their activation with the new provider on September 20, 2020 and return to their original provider. The customer told the CCTS they cancelled the activation request over the phone and also went in-store to ensure there would be no fees billed. However, on September 29, 2020, an activation fee of $99.99 was billed to the customer’s credit card by the new provider.
The customer complained to the provider, which then processed a refund to the credit card in two instalments: October of 2020 and January of 2021. In March of 2021, the provider re-billed the activation fee to the customer and the customer received communications from the provider’s collections agency threatening the customer’s credit status. The customer did not pay the fee because they did not want to activate service and had cancelled the activation. However, the customer was concerned about negative remarks on their credit report because they did not pay the fee.
After being unable to resolve the issue with the provider, the customer submitted a complaint to the CCTS in April of 2021. The customer was seeking to have the re-billed amount of $99.99 credited in full and any negative credit reporting corrected. The customer also wanted assurance that there would not be negative remarks on their credit report in the future due to this issue. The provider claimed the fee was legitimate and an overdue balance.
We explained the customer’s position that the charge was not legitimate and showed the provider documentation that the customer received in-store to confirm that the activation was not completed. The provider then agreed to credit the disputed activation fee as it should not have been billed. We also asked the provider to demonstrate that that it instructed the collections agency to stop contacting the customer and to remove negative credit remarks from the customer’s profile, which it did. The customer was very satisfied with this outcome, and we concluded the complaint.
Expiration of credit card on file leads to credit reports
A customer submitted a complaint about the credit report made by their service provider against them. The customer explained that in July of 2021, their pre-authorized credit card expired and their provider did not notify them of the credit card expiry. The customer was unaware of the credit card expiry, which resulted in unpaid invoices. The provider reported to the credit bureau that the customer’s bills were not paid on time.
Our investigation confirmed that the customer’s credit card expired in July of 2021. As a result, invoices for August and September of 2021 were not paid until the customer updated their credit card in October of 2021.
We reviewed the provider’s credit reporting policies and procedures, which confirmed that it is not obligated to inform customers that their credit cards have expired. The provider had notified the customer by text message about unpaid invoices in August and September. These notices advised the customer that the account required attention.
The provider confirmed that the customer paid all outstanding amounts in October of 2021, which brought the account back into good standing. However, the provider had already reported late payments to the credit bureau. The provider explained that regardless of the circumstance that leads to late payment, late payments must be reported to the credit bureau according to its policies. The provider cannot correct reports for late payments after outstanding amounts are paid because the fact that the payment was late remains true.
We reviewed the credit reporting history going back 12 months and confirmed that the credit reporting that was completed by the provider was an accurate reflection of the payment history on the account. As a result, the service provider met its obligations to the customer. The customer accepted our explanation and concluded the complaint.
Key Message
Negative credit reporting can have long-term effects on customers. When we look at credit reporting issues, we seek to understand why the provider reported the customer to the credit bureau and whether the provider followed its credit-reporting policies and procedures, including whether the provider had proper cause for submitting the credit report.
Working with Service Providers
Annual Report
August 1, 2021 – July 31, 2022
The CCTS’ role is to help customers and Participating Service Providers (PSPs) resolve disputes.
When customers and PSPs are unable to resolve their disputes, the CCTS investigates to determine how they should be concluded. The CCTS works to identify the key drivers of customer complaints so that PSPs can better understand and consider internal change to address their customers’ issues, and so that customers can be informed of trends in complaints.
In this section, we present the results for those PSPs that have been the subject of the greatest number of complaints and also discuss our Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program.
National PSP groups complaint proportion analysis across last four years
In this section, we look at the proportion of customer complaints about national PSP groups, which are the largest telecom and TV service providers which offer wireless service nationally to consumers and which offer internet, phone and TV services to large regions of Canada. These providers offer services to consumers through a number of affiliate brands:
Bell group: Bell Canada, Bell Aliant, Bell Mobility, Bell MTS, Bell Satellite TV, DMTS, KMTS, Lucky Mobile, PC Mobile (Prepaid), Solo, Virgin Plus and Vox;
Rogers group: Rogers Communications, Chatr Wireless, Cityfone, Compton Communications, Fido, Kincardine Group, Simply Connect and Source Cable Ltd. ; and
TELUS group: TELUS Communications Inc., Koodo, Mascon Communications Inc, PC Mobile (Post-Paid), Public Mobile, TELUS Satellite and Mascon Cable.
Figure 8.1: Accepted complaints trend over three national PSP groups
Figure 8.2: Proportion of accepted complaints for the three national PSP groups
Since 2018-19, the number of accepted complaints about the Bell group decreased from 7,646 to 3,546 this year, down by 54% compared to a 25% overall decrease in complaints.
While the Bell and Rogers groups showed a downward trend in the number of complaints this year, the TELUS group saw a slight increase from 2,082 to 2,187 complaints, up by 5%.
The three national PSP groups accounted for 72% of all accepted complaints this year.
This year the Bell group accounted for 28% of all accepted complaints across all service providers, down year-over-year since 2018-19, when it accounted for 40%.
The Rogers group had the largest increase in the proportion of complaints over the last four years across the national PSP groups, from 15% of all complaints in 2018-19 to 27% of all complaints in 2021-22. The increase in the Rogers group proportion of complaints is largely due to an increase in complaints about Rogers Communications and Fido.
This year the TELUS group accounted for 17% of all accepted complaints across all service providers, up from 12% last year.
Top 25 Participating Service Providers
Table 8.1: Top 25 PSPs by complaints accepted
wdt_ID
Service provider
Accepted complaints
Percentage of all complaints
YoY % change of complaints accepted
Concluded complaints*
Resolution rate†
Escalation rate††
1
Bell
2,198
17.2%
-37.5
2,267
83.5%
30.8%
2
Rogers
2,014
15.7%
-14.7
1,896
87.4%
28.7%
3
Fido
1,328
10.4%
-20.8
1,298
89.4%
30.4%
4
TELUS
1,256
9.8%
2.9
1,171
89.7%
17.8%
5
Virgin Plus
941
7.4%
-19.4
947
86.0%
31.6%
6
Koodo
828
6.5%
10.5
794
89.8%
14.0%
7
Freedom Mobile
753
5.9%
-24.3
746
92.8%
21.8%
8
Videotron
610
4.8%
-43.2
664
93.7%
16.1%
9
Shaw
558
4.4%
-35.9
583
89.2%
14.2%
10
Xplornet
187
1.5%
-62.6
212
78.3%
21.7%
* The number of concluded complaints can be higher than the number of accepted complaints because some complaints received in 2020-21 were also concluded in 2021-22.
† The resolution rate is the percentage of all resolved complaints vs. all concluded complaints (87.7% overall).
‡ The escalation rate is the percentage of all escalated complaints vs. all concluded complaints (25.2% overall).
NOTE: Where a complaint remains unresolved after the pre-investigation or initial referral period, the complaint escalates to a CCTS investigation.
Together, the top 25 PSPs account for 94% of all accepted complaints in 2021-22. One hundred and seventy-one (171) PSPs account for the remaining 6% of accepted complaints this year. The Top 10 PSPs are discussed in more detail later in the Top 10 PSP profiles section.
There are a few changes to the list of service providers that fall into the Top 25 PSPs list this year.
Of the providers in the preceding table, TELUS, Koodo, Fizz, Bell MTS, Primus, Eastlink and PC Mobile experienced increases in the number of complaints since last year, which is noteworthy considering the year-over-year decline of 25% for overall complaints.
PC Mobile, a prepaid service, entered the Top 25 PSP list this year, with a 138% increase in complaints. It received 38 complaints this year compared to 16 last year. The increase appears to be due to disclosure and billing issues.
All other providers had a decrease in complaints. Xplornet and Comwave had the most significant decreases in complaints, declining by 63% and 76% respectively.
Top 10 Participating Service Providers profiles
In this section, we identify areas of good performance as well as areas of improvement for the top 10 PSPs.
Figure 8.3: Top 10 PSPs by complaints accepted
Figure 8.4: Top 10 PSPs by resolution rate
NOTE: The global average resolution rate was 87.7%
Bell
WirelessInternetPhoneTV
Highlights
Bell complaints decreased for the third year in a row. This year Bell’s complaints decreased by 38%, which is a notable decrease compared to the 25% decrease in complaints across all providers.
Bell accounts for 17% of all accepted complaints, down from 21% last year.
Wireless issues decreased by 37%, a significant decrease considering a 19% decrease in wireless issues across all providers. Wireless issues account for 43% of Bell’s issues, which is lower than the overall proportion of wireless issues across all providers (51%).
Internet issues account for 27% of Bell’s issues, the same as last year.
TV issues continue to account for 14% of all Bell issues, the same as last year.
Bell’s most complained-about issue is incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan. It accounts for 14% of Bell’s issues even though its customers raised this issue 39% fewer times compared to last year.
Notably, Bell customers raised roaming charge issues more often this year, up by 165%. Roaming issues increased for all service providers by 130%.
Bell had 6 confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code, a significant decrease from 29 confirmed breaches last year. This accounts for 9% of all confirmed Wireless Code breaches, down from 30% last year. Of the six confirmed breaches, three were related to disconnection issues.
Bell had 2 confirmed breaches of the Internet Code, down from 14 last year and accounting for 9% of all confirmed Internet Code breaches.
Bell is the only service provider with confirmed breaches of the Deposit and Disconnection Code, with two counts.
Statistics
2,198 accepted complaints
-37.5% change in accepted complaints
17.2% of all accepted complaints
1,893 resolved complaints
1,356 resolved at pre-investigation
537 resolved at investigation
83.5% resolution rate (global – 87.7%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
14% incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan
13% disclosure issues
10% quality of service
11 Code breaches
6 Wireless Code breaches
2 Internet Code breaches
1 TVSP Code breach
2 D&D Code breaches
Rogers
WirelessInternetPhoneTV
Highlights
Rogers’ complaints decreased by 15% compared to a 25% decrease in complaints across all providers. Rogers accounts for 16% of all accepted complaints, up over three years from 11% to 16%.
Wireless issues account for 44% of all Rogers’ issues, up from 40% last year.
Internet issues account for 32% of all Rogers’ issues, which is higher than the proportion of internet issues overall (27%). Rogers’ customers raised internet issues 26% less often than last year compared to a 40% decrease in internet issues across all providers.
Rogers’ TV issues account for 16% of all Rogers’ issues, down from 18% last year. This is higher than the proportion of TV issues overall (11%).
Rogers’ most complained-about issue is incorrect charge for monthly price plans. This issue accounts for 14% of all of Rogers’ issues even though its customers raised this issue 39% fewer times compared to last year.
Rogers’ customers raised the following issues more often than last year:
Device or equipment financing plan issues, up by 144% from last year;
Roaming charge issues, up by 133%;
Complete loss of service, up by 16% compared to a decrease of 20% for all service providers; and
Legitimacy of the early termination fee, up by 27%.
Rogers had 7 confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code, a significant drop from 25 last year. This accounts for 11% of all confirmed Wireless Code breaches, down from 26% last year. Of the seven breaches, six were about disconnection issues. Disconnection issues were also the subject of its two confirmed Internet Code breaches.
Statistics
2,014 accepted complaints
-14.7% change in accepted complaints
15.7% of all accepted complaints
1,657 resolved complaints
1,236 resolved at pre-investigation
421 resolved at investigation
87.4% resolution rate (Global – 87.7%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
14% incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan
14% disclosure issues
12% quality of service
9 Code breaches
7 Wireless Code breaches
2 Internet Code breaches
0 TVSP Code breaches
0 D&D Code breaches
Fido (owned by Rogers)
WirelessInternet
Highlights
Fido complaints decreased by 21% compared to a 25% decrease in complaints across all providers.
Fido accounts for 10% of all accepted complaints, on par with last year.
Fido’s wireless issues decreased by 4% this year. However, wireless issues account for 93% of Fido’s issues compared to 79% last year.
Internet issues decreased by 69% this year, now accounting for 8% of all of Fido’s issues. The decrease seems to have been driven by a significant decline in the number of breach of contract issues and credit/refund not received issues for internet services.
Device/equipment financing plan is the most-increased issue raised by Fido customers, up by 200%.
Issues about long-distance charges (chargeable messages) have increased significantly (1,215%) over five years. This year, Fido’s chargeable messages issues are up by 46%.
Customers also raised activation/reactivation charge issues with Fido more every year over the past five years, with an increase of 750% over five years.
Incorrect charge issues account for 13% of Fido’s issues even though there was a 24% decrease in this issue.
Fido’s confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code continued to drop, with 5 confirmed breaches this year compared to 9 last year and 13 the year before. Two of the five breaches were about Fido not providing a paper or electronic copy of the contract to the customer or that the contract did not include all the information required in the Wireless Code.
Statistics
1,328 accepted complaints
-20.8% change in accepted complaints
10.4% of all accepted complaints
1,161 resolved complaints
847 resolved at pre-investigation
314 resolved at investigation
89.4% resolution rate (Global – 87.7%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
18% disclosure issues
13% incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan
7% chargeable messages (long distance)
5 Code breaches
5 Wireless Code breaches
0 Internet Code breaches
0 D&D Code breaches
TELUS
WirelessInternetPhoneTV
Highlights
TELUS complaints increased by 3% compared to a 25% decrease in complaints across all providers.
TELUS accounts for 10% of all accepted complaints, up from 7% last year.
Wireless issues account for 53% of all TELUS issues. The number of TELUS’ wireless issues increased by 4% this year compared to a 19% decrease in wireless issues across all service providers.
Internet issues account for 25% of all TELUS issues. The number of TELUS’ internet issues declined by 16% compared to the 40% decrease in internet issues across all providers. This is the first time TELUS’ internet issues decreased in five years.
TV issues account for 11% of all TELUS issues, down 2% from last year.
TELUS’ long distance issues increased by 36% compared to a 61% decrease across all providers.
Incorrect charge issues became the most complained-about issue for TELUS customers, accounting for 14% of all issues. This issue increased by 2% this year for TELUS, which is notable considering that the issue declined by 31% across all service providers.
Disclosure issues are the number two issue for TELUS customers, up by 4% from last year and accounting for 13% of all TELUS issues. Meanwhile, disclosure issues decreased by 36% for all service providers.
Quality of service issues dropped to the number three issue for TELUS customers, down by 34% from last year and accounting for 10% of all TELUS issues. This is the first time TELUS saw this issue decrease in three years.
TELUS’ confirmed Code breaches increased significantly from 8 last year to 22 this year.
TELUS accounts for half of all confirmed Internet Code breaches with 11 breaches, up from zero last year. Six of these confirmed breaches were for failing to provide required information in contracts and related documents and the remaining five were for lack of clarity in its communications with customers.
TELUS had eight confirmed Wireless Code breaches, unchanged from last year. Two of these confirmed breaches were related to disconnection issues.
TELUS had three confirmed breaches of the TVSP Code compared to zero last year, accounting for 33% of all confirmed TVSP Code breaches. The three confirmed breaches are related to its failure to give the customer a copy of the written contract or the Critical Information Summary or to provide clear information of the offer.
Statistics
1,256 accepted complaints
2.9% change in accepted complaints
9.8% of all accepted complaints
1,050 resolved complaints
907 resolved at pre-investigation
143 resolved at investigation
89.7% resolution rate (Global – 87.7%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
14% incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan
13% disclosure issues
10% quality of service
22 Code breaches
8 Wireless Code breaches
11 Internet Code breaches
3 TVSP Code breaches
0 D&D Code breaches
Virgin Plus (owned by Bell)
WirelessInternetPhone
Highlights
Virgin Plus (formerly Virgin Mobile Canada) complaints decreased by 19% compared to a 25% decrease in complaints across all providers. Virgin Plus accounts for 7% of all accepted complaints, unchanged from last year.
Internet issues increased by 11% despite overall internet issues decreasing by 40%. Internet issues account for 15% of all issues for Virgin Plus. The number of internet issues raised by Virgin Plus customers has grown year-over-year for five years.
Disclosure is still the most complained-about issue for Virgin Plus, accounting for 14% of all its issues, down from 17% last year.
Device financing plan issues continue to increase for Virgin Plus, with a 100% increase in these issues.
Credit reporting issues account for 5% of all issues raised by Virgin Plus customers. The number of these issues increased by 5% this year while credit reporting issues decreased by 19% across all service providers.
Virgin Plus had 11 confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code, up from 6 last year and 4 the year before. Virgin Plus accounted for 17% of all confirmed Wireless Code breaches. Three of 11 breaches were about disconnection issues. Two others related to lack of clarity; two related to not providing required information in the Critical Information Summary; and two related to not giving the customer a copy of the written contract.
Virgin Plus also had two confirmed Internet Code breaches, both related to disconnection issues.
Statistics
941 accepted complaints
-19.4% change in accepted complaints
7.4% of all accepted complaints
814 resolved complaints
575 resolved at pre-investigation
239 resolved at investigation
86.0% resolution rate (Global – 87.7%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
14% disclosure issues
12% incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan
7% credit/refund not received
13 Code breaches
11 Wireless Code breaches
2 Internet Code breaches
0 D&D Code breaches
Koodo (owned by TELUS)
Wireless
Highlights
Koodo complaints increased by 11% compared to a 25% decrease in complaints across all providers. Koodo accounts for 7% of all accepted complaints, up from 4% last year.
The top three Koodo issues are incorrect charge (13% of Koodo’s issues), disclosure issues (11%) and credit reporting (9%). Notably, Koodo’s credit reporting issues increased by 12% this year compared to a 19% decrease in credit reporting issues across all service providers.
As the biggest issue for Koodo, incorrect charge has been increasing year-over-year for the past five years.
Quality of service issues account for 6% of all Koodo’s issues and have increased year-over-year during the last five years.
There are significant increases in device financing plan issues and roaming charge issues.
Koodo had eight confirmed Wireless Code breaches this year, doubled from four last year. Four of the eight confirmed breaches were related to Koodo’s failure to provide required information in the Critical Information Summary and the remaining four breaches related to not providing a paper or electronic copy of the contract to the customer.
Statistics
828 accepted complaints
10.5% change in accepted complaints
6.5% of all accepted complaints
713 resolved complaints
638 resolved at pre-investigation
75 resolved at investigation
89.8% resolution rate (Global – 87.7%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
13% incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan
11% disclosure issues
9% credit reporting
8 Code breaches
8 Wireless Code breaches
0 D&D Code breaches
Freedom Mobile (owned by Shaw)
Wireless
Highlights
Freedom Mobile complaints decreased for the third year in a row. Freedom Mobile complaints decreased by 24%. Freedom Mobile accounts for 6% of all accepted complaints, unchanged from last year.
The vast majority of Freedom Mobile’s issues are about wireless services (98%). Freedom Mobile began offering internet services in 2019 and received only 28 issues about its internet services this year.
The most-complained about issue for Freedom Mobile customers relates to disclosure, accounting for 15% of all Freedom Mobile issues despite a decrease of 24% from last year. Quality of service is the number two issue, accounting for 12% of all Freedom Mobile’s issues even though it decreased by 28%.
Credit management issues were raised by Freedom Mobile customers 48% less often than last year compared to the 20% decrease in overall credit management issues.
Freedom Mobile had 12 confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code, up from 5 last year and accounting for 19% of all confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code. Four of 12 breaches were related to Freedom Mobile’s failure to provide a paper or electronic copy of the contract to the customer or with providing inaccurate information. Another four breaches related to not providing information required in the Critical Information Summary. The remaining four breaches were about disconnection issues.
Statistics
753 accepted complaints
-24.3% change in accepted complaints
5.9% of all accepted complaints
692 resolved complaints
565 resolved at pre-investigation
127 resolved at investigation
92.8% resolution rate (Global – 87.7%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
15% disclosure issues
12% quality of service
11% incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan
12 Code breaches
12 Wireless Code breaches
Videotron
WirelessInternetPhoneTV
Highlights
Videotron complaints decreased by 43% compared to a 25% decrease in complaints across all providers. Videotron accounts for 5% of all accepted complaints, down from 6% last year.
Wireless issues decreased by 47% for Videotron compared to a 19% decrease in wireless issues across all service providers. Wireless issues account for 26% of all Videotron issues.
Videotron’s internet issues decreased by 41%, on par with the 40% decrease in internet issues across all service providers. Internet issues account for 34% of all Videotron issues, unchanged from last year.
TV issues decreased by 39% for Videotron compared to a 35% decrease in TV issues across all service providers. TV issues account for 27% of all Videotron issues.
Videotron customers raised device financing plan issues 92% more often this year.
The most complained-about issues raised by Videotron customers are disclosure issues and incorrect charge for monthly price plans, each accounting for 20% of Videotron’s issues.
Videotron had three confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code, down from six last year.
Videotron had three confirmed Internet Code breaches compared to zero last year. The confirmed breaches were about not providing key contract terms and conditions or the Critical Information Summary.
Videotron had four confirmed TVSP Code breaches, up from two last year and accounting for 44% of all confirmed TVSP Code breaches. Two of Videotron’s four confirmed breaches were about not providing information required in the Critical Information Summary.
Statistics
610 accepted complaints
-43.2% change in accepted complaints
4.8% of all accepted complaints
622 resolved complaints
538 resolved at pre-investigation
84 resolved at investigation
93.7% resolution rate (Global – 87.7%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
20% disclosure issues
20% incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan
6% credit/refund not received
10 Code breaches
3 Wireless Code breaches
3 Internet Code breaches
4 TVSP Code breaches
0 D&D Code breaches
Shaw
WirelessInternetPhoneTV
Highlights
Shaw complaints decreased by 36% compared to a 25% decrease in complaints across all providers. Shaw accounts for 4% of all accepted complaints, down from 5% last year.
Internet issues account for 51% of all Shaw issues. The number of Shaw’s internet issues decreased by 45% compared to a 40% decrease in internet issues across all providers.
Wireless issues account for 14% of all Shaw issues, up from 6% last year. Wireless issues were raised 46% more often by Shaw customers than last year. (Shaw launched Shaw Mobile in July of 2020.)
TV issues account for 24% of all Shaw issues. Shaw’s TV issues decreased by 30% compared to a 35% decrease in TV issues across all service providers.
Shaw’s top issue is quality of service, up from 14% last year and accounting for 16% of its issues.
Shaw’s disclosure issues decreased by 46% while overall disclosure issues decreased by 36%. Disclosure issues account for 14% of all Shaw issues, the same as last year.
Shaw had five confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code this year, up from three last year.
Statistics
558 accepted complaints
-35.9% change in accepted complaints
4.4% of all accepted complaints
520 resolved complaints
464 resolved at pre-investigation
56 resolved at investigation
89.2% resolution rate (Global – 87.7%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
16% quality of service
14% disclosure issues
11% legitimacy of early termination fee
5 Code breaches
5 Wireless Code breaches
0 Internet Code breaches
0 TVSP Code breaches
0 D&D Code breaches
Xplornet*
InternetPhone
Highlights
While complaints across all providers decreased by 25% overall, Xplornet complaints decreased by 63%. Xplornet accounts for 2% of all accepted complaints, down from 3% last year.
Internet issues account for 97% of Xplornet’s issues because Xplornet is primarily an internet service provider. Xplornet saw a 58% decrease in internet issues this year compared to a 40% decrease in internet issues across all service providers.
The decrease in Xplornet’s internet issues is driven mostly by a significant 61% decrease in service delivery issues. Quality of service remains the top issue for Xplornet customers, accounting for 45% of all Xplornet’s issues. The number of times Xplornet customers raised quality of service issues decreased by 68% this year.
Xplornet had two confirmed Internet Code breaches compared to zero last year. Its two confirmed breaches involved a lack of clarity of information.
* In September 2022, Xplornet rebranded to Xplore.
Statistics
187 accepted complaints
-62.6% change in accepted complaints
1.5% of all accepted complaints
166 resolved complaints
130 resolved at pre-investigation
36 resolved at investigation
78.3% resolution rate (Global – 87.7%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
45% quality of service
8% complete loss of service
6% incorrect charge relating to monthly price plan
2 Code breaches
2 Internet Code breaches
0 D&D Code breaches
Monitoring service provider compliance
There are two categories of service provider requirements: the CRTC requirement to participate in the CCTS; and the CCTS requirements that service providers agree to when it becomes a Participating Service Provider (PSP).
To ensure the CCTS can provide free and effective service to customers when they need it, the CRTC requires companies that provide retail telecom services in Canada, as well as licensed TV service providers, to participate in the CCTS. We also receive requests from some service providers who choose to participate in the CCTS voluntarily.
Some service providers (typically small providers or new entrants to the business) do not currently participate. Their obligation to join is triggered when one of their customers files a complaint with the CCTS.
We do everything in our power to get these service providers to join, and we’re generally successful. This year it took us, on average, 37 days to sign up a new provider from the time it was informed of its requirement to participate. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some service providers encountered financial difficulties paying the sign-up fees and faced challenges accessing information required for sign-up while working remotely.
In 2021-22, we signed up 24 new service providers. Unfortunately, some providers refuse to join the CCTS. If we’re unable to persuade them to follow the rules and become a PSP, we refer the matter to the CRTC for further action. Last year, the CRTC initiated show cause proceedings against Net2Web Inc.and 9319-4082 Québec inc. (Haute-Vitesse.com) for failing to sign up with the CCTS when required to do so.
After a provider has become a PSP, it is required to adhere to the CCTS obligations outlined in the Participation Agreement, including:
complying with the CCTS Procedural Code, which contains rules for CCTS’ complaint-handling process;
paying fees and disclosing certain financial information.
The CCTS regularly monitors PSP compliance with these obligations and engages with PSPs to bring them into compliance. If a PSP continues to be non-compliant, the CCTS has a range of enforcement tools to seek PSP compliance, up to and including the expulsion of non-compliant PSPs from the CCTS: this triggers a referral to the CRTC for further action.
In August of 2022, we issued the annual Compliance Monitoring Report, which explains the compliance requirements in detail, provides the results of the CCTS’ compliance monitoring efforts in 2021, and discusses trends observed in the last five years. The CCTS also regularly updates our Non-compliant providers web page, publishing the identities of providers who were referred to the CRTC for failure to join the CCTS when required or who are expelled from the CCTS for failing to comply with CCTS obligations.
Working with Customers
Annual Report
August 1, 2021 – July 31, 2022
Customers often come to us frustrated, discouraged or intimidated, most of them looking for guidance. Our primary goal at the CCTS is to listen, understand and make sure consumers are treated fairly. It’s our role to walk them through our process and educate them by offering easy-to-digest information and facilitating a fair outcome. This section discusses our activities and results in 2021-22.
“I'm very grateful that the CCTS is there for the consumers to help resolve the complaints among all those confusing service providers.”
Listening to customers
We regularly survey customers who use our service to get their impressions of the work we do, refocus our efforts for improvement and attempt to measure the success of the public awareness initiatives we require Participating Service Providers (PSPs) to implement.
This year, we received over 3,000 responses from our customers and are proud to say that the results show overwhelmingly high customer satisfaction levels with the service our staff provides. We are pleased to see that we continue to meet our objective of offering a great service to Canadians year over year.
Numbers may be rounded.
What customers said about the CCTS
We asked our customers for the following information:
Is it important to have an independent organization to deal with telecom and TV complaints that has the authority to provide customers with compensation?
Was it easy to file your complaint with the CCTS?
Feedback on whether the service you received from our customer service representatives met your expectations.
Feedback on whether the service you received from our complaint resolution officers met your expectations.
Feedback on overall sense of satisfaction with various aspects of our process.
Timelines: Did we complete our work in a reasonable amount of time?
Professionalism: Were we professional, knowledgeable and courteous?
Impartiality: Did we act without favoritism to either you or your service provider?
What customers said about service provider public awareness activities
How did you first find out about the CCTS?
Service providers have committed to notify customers about the CCTS during their internal complaint-handling process. We asked our customers:
Did your service provider tell you about the CCTS during your efforts to resolve the problem?
Service providers are required to print a prescribed message about the CCTS on customer bills four times a year. We asked our customers:
Have you ever seen the notice on any of your bills?
Service providers have committed to placing a prescribed notice about the CCTS in a reasonably prominent place on their websites and to include a link to the CCTS website. We asked our customers:
Have you seen this information on the service provider website?
“Excellent service. I felt validated as a consumer, and it felt like I had a voice. I liked that I was able to receive a response within days. It expedited satisfaction. Well done.”
What customers said about their interactions with service providers concerning issues
We asked customers about their interactions with service providers before the CCTS became involved.
How long did you try to resolve your problem directly with your service provider before bringing your complaint to the CCTS?
How many levels of escalation (front line customer service, supervisor, manager, etc.) did your complaint go through with the service provider before you filed a complaint with the CCTS?
Knowing where to find us
Canadians need to be aware of or be able to easily find out about the CCTS when they need assistance in resolving disputes with their communications service providers. We take seriously the continuing need to ensure public awareness of the services that we provide.
The CCTS undertakes general public awareness activities, such as publishing our Annual and Mid-Year Reports, creating accessible video content for our YouTube page, regular public newsletters, social media presence and engagement, and providing media outlets with information and data. We also engage with consumer groups and civil society groups plus consumer protection agencies to seek outreach opportunities and appropriate referrals. PSPs are also required to contribute to building public awareness by carrying out the obligations of the CCTS Public Awareness Plan.
The objective of the CCTS’ Public Awareness Plan is to ensure that information about the CCTS is readily available to customers when they need it most — at the time they are experiencing a problem. The Plan sets out a variety of activities to be undertaken by service providers, such as notices about the CCTS on their websites, customer bill messages, and informing customers about the CCTS in the course of their’ internal complaint-handling processes.
Our website is also a key tool for making sure consumers know where to find us when they need help the most. Again this year, more than a third of customers say they first learned about the CCTS through an online search. 314,000 customers visited our website last year and 86% of the complaints that we accepted were filed using our online self-serve tool.
The CCTS remains committed to ensuring that efforts are made to raise public awareness of customers’ right to recourse to the CCTS in the event of an unresolved dispute with a service provider. We will continue to review our PSP Public Awareness Plan and build public awareness through additional public-facing materials and enhancing the CCTS’ digital presence, social media campaigns, digital ads and search engine optimization.
Providing easy access to our services
Providing accessible service to all Canadians, including those with disabilities, is one of our core values. We deliver our service in a manner that accommodates persons with disabilities and reflects the principles of independence, dignity, integration and equality of opportunity, in line with the best practices of the Accessible Canada Act and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.
The CCTS Accessibility Committee meets regularly to discuss and plan the progress of our accessibility efforts. The CCTS also consults annually with groups representing Canadians with disabilities. In 2022, we had consultations with participants from five accessibility groups. During these discussions, we learned that the biggest hurdle for the accessibility community is the lack of awareness of the service offered by the CCTS. We will work with accessibility groups to share accessible material about CCTS to spread the word about our services.
Participants pointed out that it is often difficult for an individual with mobility, cognitive, sight, speech or vision challenges to access information that would be helpful for them in a time of need. The CCTS continues to welcome the feedback of under-represented and under-served communities regularly to inform our work and to ensure that accessibility requirements are included from the start.
As an information gateway for consumers, it is crucial that our website serves all Canadians. To meet the evolving needs of consumers, we regularly assess our website to ensure that our online self-serve tools and content meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. All of the CCTS’ videos are closed captioned and have an American Sign Language/langue des signes Québécoise (ASL/LSQ) version. Our publications, such as our Annual, Mid-Year and Compliance Monitoring Reports, are in an accessible HTML format.
While CCTS strives to ensure accessibility of our services, industry accessibility standards and requirements are set by the CRTC. The CCTS continues to track accessibility-related issues that appear in customer complaints, as requested by the CRTC and members of the accessibility community, and we refer complaints about accessibility issues to the CRTC.
Having meaningful discussions with consumer group stakeholders
Understanding the needs and challenges of consumers across the country helps inform how we provide our services. In February 2022, the CCTS held its first Consumer Advisory Panel which brought together representatives from nine consumer advocacy groups, representing the interests of consumers from coast to coast. At our inaugural Consumer Advisory Panel, we discussed a multitude of issues that impact Canadians daily, and received feedback from consumer groups including suggestions to increase public awareness and reach out to vulnerable consumers.
We look forward to this twice-yearly consultation, which will help the CCTS better understand the consumer experience with us and the needs of vulnerable consumers, identify emerging trends for consumers, and seek opportunities to collaborate for broader community outreach and awareness of the CCTS.
Statistical Reports
Annual Report
August 1, 2021 – July 31, 2022
Contact Centre activities
Our Contact Centre received over 94,000 communications by telephone, in writing and by online chat, down from almost 115,000 last year.
Table 10.1: Communications received
Type of communication
2021-22
YoY change
Written correspondence
36,364
-11%
Phone calls answered
54,644
-22%
Chat sessions answered
3,094
-24%
Phone calls continue to be the most-used type of communication, followed by written correspondence (which includes use of our online interactive questionnaire) and chat sessions. Communications received by the CCTS decreased by 18% overall compared to last year, with decreases in each of the communication types.
Out-of-mandate issues
The following tables show the number of issues raised by customers that the CCTS could not accept in 2021-22 because they are out of scope of the CCTS’ mandate. This mandate is set by the CRTC, and the CRTC periodically reviews whether the mandate continues to be appropriate. The scope of complaints that the CCTS is authorized to receive and examples of services and subjects that fall outside the CCTS’ scope are set out in our Procedural Code. When we receive complaints outside our mandate, such as issues of pricing, infrastructure, and privacy, we notify the customer and provider and refer the customer to a more appropriate organization or complaint-handling body.
Section 3.1(b)(i) Digital Media Broadcast Undertaking (DMBU) services
77
Section 3.1(b)(ii) Interactive TVSP services and applications
14
Section 3.1(b)(iii) Broadcasting content
715
Section 3.1(b)(iv) Journalistic ethics
158
Section 3.1(b)(v) TV accessibility issues, e.g., closed captioning and described video
52
Section 3.1(b)(vi) Simultaneous substitution
21
Section 3.1(c)(i) Customer-owned equipment
156
Section 3.1(c)(ii) Inside wiring
24
Section 3.1(c)(iii) Security services
265
Section 3.1(c)(iv) Networking services
413
Section 3.1(c)(v) Pricing
901
Section 3.1(c)(vi) Rights of way
283
Section 3.1(c)(vii) Plant/poles/towers
857
Section 3.1(c)(viii) False/misleading advertising
325
Section 3.1(c)(ix) Privacy issues
829
Other – Aggressive tactics
93
Other – Broadcasting (radio)
69
Other – Broadcasting (television – small business)
33
Other – Broadcasting (television – exempt independent TVSP)
58
Other – Consumer – clarity of offers and promotions (TVSP Code)
69
Other – Not related to service providers (phone/internet scams)
681
Other – Regulated services
23
Other – Spam
67
Other – Hybrid Video on Demand Services
14
Total
7,280
The total number of issues reported in this section decreased from 8,244 last year to 7,280 this year.
Complaints about service provider pricing remain the top out-of-scope issue even though it decreased for the second year in a row (by 27% this year and by 25% last year). The CCTS does not accept complaints about how PSPs set their prices or the amount of telecom or television service prices; however, complaints about disclosure of price changes can be accepted.
Despite an overall decline in the total number of out-of-scope issues compared to last year, some out-of-scope issues significantly increased this year: journalistic ethics (a 251% increase, from 45 to 158 issues), broadcasting content (a 58% increase, from 453 to 715 issues), and security services (a 32% increase, from 201 to 265 issues).
Procedural Code Section 4
Complaints about the quality of customer service delivered by providers do not fall within the CCTS’ mandate. However, we track the inquiries we get about these issues.
Table 10.3: Procedural Code Section 4
Issue
Number
Section 4.1 Customer service
Language barriers
243
Outsourcing
314
No phone number for customer service
371
Rude representative
1,989
Wait times
1,957
Total
4,874
Section 4.3 General operating practices and policies
4,375
Total
9,249
In 2021-22, there were 9,249 issues, a decrease of 20% from last year.
Procedural Code Section 10
The CCTS is required to decline complaints in certain situations, in accordance with our Procedural Code. We track and report on these complaints.
Table 10.4: Procedural Code Section 10: Duty To Decline To Take Action
Issue
Number
Section 10.1 Service provider not offered opportunity to resolve
982
Section 10.2(b) Matter previously or currently with another agency
908
Section 10.3(a) Facts transpired more than one year ago
1,287
Section 10.3(b) Facts arose prior to Effective Date
20
Total
3,197
Complaints that customers tried to file in which facts took place more than one year earlier decreased by 29%.
Accessibility issues
Most complaints about a provider’s failure to accommodate customer accessibility requests are out of our mandate. However, there are some accessibility issues that the CCTS will consider to be in-scope; specifically, where a CRTC Code that the CCTS administers contains a requirement to provide an accommodation. The Wireless, TV Service Provider and Internet Codes require an extended trial period for persons with disabilities and also require customer contracts and related documents to be provided in an accessible format on request.
At the request of the CRTC and members of the accessibility community, we track when customers raise out-of-scope accessibility issues about their providers. We also refer these issues to the proper organization, the CRTC.
Table 10.5: Accessibility issues
Section
Number
Customer service: Indifference to customer’s disability
48
Hearing and speech issues: Lack of in-store language accessibility Message relay services (MRS) not available Video relay services (VRS) not available
1 5 2
Total
8
Mobility issues: Lack of in-store physical accessibility
0
Visual issues: Contract not provided in alternative format (for home phone and long distance only) Bills and other information not provided in alternative format
0 4
Total
4
TV accessibility issues
52
Special type of wireless device handset not offered
1
Customer was refused an accessibility plan
1
Emergency services (barriers to accessing emergency services)
1
Policies and operating procedures
15
Other issues
3
Total
133
Complaints about customer service indifference to a customer’s disability increased from 42 to 48 this year.
Issues about wireless device financing plans
In March 2021, the CRTC issued a decision determining that device financing plans fall under the scope of the Wireless Code. This decision confirmed that the full protections of the Wireless Code apply to wireless device financing plans. To inform future reviews of the Wireless Code, the CRTC requested that the CCTS begin tracking complaints related to device financing plans in our annual and mid-year reports.
Table 10.6: Issues about wireless device financing plans
# of issues in 2021-22
% of all issues in 2021-22
# of issues in 2020-21
% of all issues in 2020-21
YoY change in # of issues raised
Resolution rate (global resolution rate – 86.8%)
Device financing plans (wireless services)
343
1.2%
142
0.3%
141.5%
85.7%
As service providers seek to find ways to lower the up-front costs of high-cost wireless devices for consumers, there continues to be an evolution and increase in device financing options. For example, providers may offer a formal credit agreement or device financing plan with a combination of device discounts or bonuses that decrease over the term of the contract, or a “bring-it-back” option. Each arrangement has a contract, which may be complex and confusing for consumers.
In complaints about wireless device financing plans, customers are often surprised at the early termination fee they are required to pay when they terminate early or are surprised about their monthly service fee following the completion of the 24-month device financing plan. We suggest that providers explore simpler ways of articulating device subsidies to avoid confusion and future complaints. Providers should also train their representatives to be able to accurately explain cancellation scenarios. We encourage consumers to ask questions during sales transactions and review their contracts carefully to make sure they understand payment requirements for scenarios such as early termination or when the financing arrangement ends. We have included some case summaries about device financing plan issues in Topics and Trends.
Small business
In 2021-22, we concluded 840 complaints from small business customers, a 21% decrease from last year and 6.6% of all concluded complaints. In those 840 concluded complaints, there were 2,165 issues. This represents a 20% decrease from last year and 7.4% of all issues from all concluded complaints.
When we report our operational statistics, we include the data for all the complaints we dealt with during the year. However, not all complaints are alike. In particular, we know that complaints from small business customers can be quite different from those of individual consumers. The following tables highlight the differences.
Table 10.7: Small business complaint subjects vs. consumer complaint subjects
Subject
Small business
Consumer
Contract dispute
41.2%
28.7%
Billing
29.5%
39.8%
Service delivery
25.9%
26.8%
Credit management
3.4%
4.7%
Total
100%
100%
Table 10.8: Small business complaint service types vs. consumer complaint service types
Service
Small business
Consumer
Internet access
34.2%
26.5%
Wireless
34.6%
52.0%
Local exchange and VoIP services (including calling features)
30.7%
8.8%
Long distance (including prepaid calling cards)
0.6%
0.6%
The proportion of internet issues reported by small business customers increased from 32.7% to 34.2%. By contrast, internet issues for individual consumers decreased from 31.1% to 26.5%. Wireless issues reported by small business customers decreased from 36% to 34.6%. For individual consumers, wireless issues increased from 44.2% to 52% for individual consumers.
Table 10.9: Top 10 small business complaint issues
Issue
Small business
Consumer
Disclosure issues
17.7%
22.7%
Monthly price plan – Incorrect charge
17.0%
22.6%
Legitimacy of early termination fee (ETF)
15.4%
4.5%
Intermittent/inadequate quality of service
13.9%
18.5%
Breach of contract
7.8%
8.7%
Credit/refund not received
6.9%
8.8%
Auto-renewal
6.2%
0.1%
Complete loss of service
5.7%
5.5%
Credit reporting
4.9%
7.3%
Amount of ETF
4.6%
1.2%
Analysis of closed complaints
Our operational statistics show that we closed 1,557 complaints in 2021-22. The following table provides a breakdown of the reasons why those complaints were closed and references the relevant section of the Procedural Code.
Table 10.10: Complaints closed by reason for closure
Complaint
Issues
%
Closed as duplicate
5
0.3%
Customer withdrew complaint
158
10.1%
Out-of-mandate after further information obtained
22
1.4%
Section 9.1(b) Customer is not authorized to file complaint
10
0.6%
Section 9.1(c) Complaint more appropriately handled by another agency
26
1.7%
Section 9.1(d) Further investigation not warranted
287
18.4%
Section 9.1(e) Customer not cooperative
752
48.3%
Section 9.1(f) Service provider offer is reasonable
120
7.7%
Section 10.1 Service provider not offered opportunity to resolve
14
0.9%
Section 10.2(b) Matter previously or currently with another agency
8
0.5%
Section 10.3(a) Complaint filed outside time limits
153
9.8%
Section 10.3(b) Facts arose prior to effective date
2
0.1%
Total
1,557
100%
We close complaints under section 9.1(e) of our Procedural Code when a customer does not cooperate with our efforts to process and investigate the customer’s complaints; for example, by providing information about their complaint, responding to our inquiries, and discussing the complaint with their provider during the 30-day pre-investigation stage. We make multiple attempts to elicit customer cooperation before closing a complaint.
Compensation analysis
In cases that are resolved as well as in Recommendations and Decisions, customers may receive some form of compensation from their service provider. This compensation can take many forms, including:
bill credits
bill adjustments
free or discounted products and services
cash payments
We attempt to record the value of all compensation awarded to customers as a result of the CCTS process. This is challenging because in a significant number of cases (in particular, resolutions that occur at our Pre-investigation stage) we are not provided with the details of the resolution reached between the customer and the service provider.
The total compensation awarded in 2021-22 that we can determine was $1,698,433.60.
Table 10.11: Number of complaints in which compensation was awarded
Compensation range
Number of complaints
Percentage
< $100
1,214
29.4%
$100 – $499
1,988
48.2%
$500 – $999
576
14.0%
$1,000 – $4,999
331
8.0%
$5,000 or more
16
0.4%
Total
4,125
100%
“I was getting nowhere with my service provider and very frustrated. A friend recommended the CCTS. If it wasn’t for the CCTS I would probably still be waiting for resolution.”
Performance standards
Each year, we set a goal to provide great customer service, and we track our performance across various benchmarks. The following tables show how our performance this year compares to those benchmark targets.
Our Board is comprised of seven directors who are elected to three-year terms:
four independent directors, two of whom are appointed by consumer advocacy groups;
three industry directors, one from each of the following groups: the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs), the cable companies and the other Participating Service Providers (PSPs).
For up-to-date biographies throughout the year, visit our Board of Directors web page.
Board changes
In October 2021, Geoff Batstone retired after serving on the Board since October 2018. The other PSPs nominated Geoff White as his replacement.
Meetings and director attendance
wdt_ID
Board meeting date
Aczel Bolvie
Barber
Halwas
Middleton
Shaikh
Saumier
White (appointed in Oct. 2021)
1
November 1 & 3, 2021
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2
January 20, 2022
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3
March 11, 2022
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
4
April 11, 2022
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
5
May 3, 2022
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
6
June 8, 2022
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
7
June 30, 2022
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Committees and working groups: Membership and meetings
The Board has the following committees and working groups. Membership and meeting dates are as follows.
Budget Working Group
Geneviève Saumier, Darlene Halwas, Dean Shaikh
Meetings: May 24 and 27 and June 16, 2022.
Service Delivery Working Group August 1 to November 7, 2021: Catherine Aczel Boivie (Chair) Ruby Barber, Catherine Middleton
November 8, 2021 to July 31, 2022: Catherine Middleton (Chair), Ruby Barber, Geoff White
Meetings: August 4 (Ruby Barber absent), September 13, October 15, November 8, and December 13, 2021, and January 10, February 14, March 14 (Ruby Barber absent), April 1 and 11, May 9, June 14 (Ruby Barber absent) and 22, and July 7, 2022.
Audit Committee Darlene Halwas (Chair), Ruby Barber, Geneviève Saumier
Meetings: September 24, October 8, and December 16, 2021, and February 24, April 12, and May 30, 2022.
Corporate Governance Committee
August 1 to December 8, 2021: Catherine Aczel Boivie (Chair), Geoff Batstone (retired Oct. 2021), Catherine Middleton
December 9 to July 31: Catherine Aczel Boivie (Chair), Catherine Middleton, Dean Shaikh
Meetings: August 5, September 17, December 9 and December 21, 2021, and January 14, February 18, April 21, and June 9, 2022.
Corporate Review Committee
Geneviève Saumier (Chair), Ruby Barber, Catherine Middleton
Meetings: May 19 and June 20, 2022.
Independent Directors Committee Catherine Aczel Boivie (Chair), Darlene Halwas, Catherine Middleton, Geneviève Saumier
Meetings: September 20, October 29, and December 21, 2021, and January 17, February 16 and 22, March 9 and 31, April 28, and June 27, 2022.
CCTS budget
The CCTS audited financial statements for 2021-22 can be found in Appendix C.
The CCTS is a not-for-profit corporation originally incorporated under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act. In January 2014 the CCTS was continued under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act.
The CCTS is funded entirely by its PSPs, based on a formula approved by the CCTS’ members. The service is free for consumers who want to file a complaint.
Large PSPs pay a fee based on the proportion of their revenues to the revenues of all the large service providers. Small PSPs pay an annual fee. All providers pay a fee for each complaint concluded by the CCTS from their customers in the year. New provider sign-up fees and bank interest make up the other sources of revenue.
In 2021-22, the CCTS recorded a surplus. We have retained the surplus to assist with the funding of the costs of implementing business process changes, complaint process changes and a new case management system as part of the Service Delivery Review project, which forms part of the CCTS’ Strategic Plan.
Below are some terms used throughout the report and their definitions.
Accepted complaint
A customer complaint received during the year and which falls within the CCTS’ mandate.
Alleged breach
When a customer claims that a service provider failed to perform an obligation under one of the four CRTC-issued codes of conduct the CCTS administers (the Deposit and Disconnection Code, the Wireless Code, the Television Service Provider Code and the Internet Code) or when a CCTS staff member identifies a potential code breach based on the details of a complaint. Each breach references an individual section of the code. As a result, more than one alleged breach may be recorded in a complaint.
Assessment
The CCTS assesses the information the customer has provided to determine if, based on the mandate, the complaint can be accepted.
Closed complaint
A complaint that was accepted and then subsequently closed. The CCTS may close the complaint for various reasons, including any of the following:
The service provider has made an offer to resolve the complaint that the CCTS thinks is fair and reasonable based on the specific circumstances of the complaint.
The complaint was found to be without merit.
After filing the complaint, the customer either withdrew it or failed to provide the information the CCTS needed to conduct the investigation.
The complaint should more properly have been brought before another agency, tribunal or court.
Concluded complaint
A complaint that the CCTS accepted and was subsequently resolved or closed. On rare occasions, complaints can lead to the CCTS issuing a formal Recommendation or Decision. A complaint concluded in this reporting period may have been accepted during the previous fiscal year.
Confirmed breach
When the CCTS can confirm, based on its investigation, that a provision of a CRTC-issued code has been violated.
Customer not cooperative
When a customer files a complaint but fails to provide the information the CCTS needs to complete its investigation. In this situation, following multiple attempts to obtain the required information, the complaint is closed.
Decision
A Decision is issued if either the customer or the service provider rejects a CCTS Recommendation. The party rejecting the Recommendation must set out its reasons and the Commissioner will reconsider the Recommendation and issue a Decision. The Commissioner may confirm the original Recommendation or, if the Commissioner concludes that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of the Recommendation, may modify the Recommendation as appropriate. A Decision is binding on the service provider but not on the customer. The customer may reject it and pursue other remedies.
Further investigation not warranted
When the CCTS determines, after inquiry, that an investigation or a further investigation is not necessary because the CCTS determines that the service provider has reasonably performed its obligations to the customer.
Investigation
The CCTS analyzes the evidence provided and uses this analysis to either suggest ways in which the complaint might be resolved amicably or, if it cannot be, to rule on the merits of the complaint.
Issue
A specific concern raised in a complaint by the customer. A complaint can contain more than one issue. For example, a customer may complain that their invoice contains a billing error and that the unpaid balance resulted in a service disconnection. This would be considered one complaint that raises two separate issues.
No breach
When the CCTS investigated an alleged breach and concluded that the service provider did not breach the code provision in question.
Out of mandate
Complaints about products, services or issues that the CCTS cannot investigate are considered to be “out of mandate.”
Pre-investigation
The initial stage of the CCTS’ complaint-handling process where the CCTS refers the complaint to the service provider to provide another opportunity to resolve the complaint. The two parties have 30 days to resolve the issue before it is referred to the investigation stage.
Recommendation
A Recommendation is issued when the complaint was fully investigated but the service provider has not made an offer to informally resolve the complaint, or if the offer is not found to be reasonable based on the specific circumstances of the complaint. The CCTS can make a Recommendation requesting that the provider take specific actions to resolve the matter.
Resolved
The complaint was resolved by the CCTS to the satisfaction of both parties.
Service provider offer is reasonable
When the service provider makes an offer to resolve a complaint and the CCTS determines that the offer fairly resolves the problem based on the specific circumstances of the complaint. In this situation, the complaint is closed even if the customer does not agree that the offer is reasonable.
Footnotes
The outage occurred at the end of the CCTS 2021-22 fiscal year, so related complaints will be concluded in the next fiscal year.
Together, the top 25 PSPs account for 94% of all accepted complaints in 2021-22. One hundred and seventy-one (171) PSPs account for the remaining 6% of accepted complaints this year. The Top 10 PSPs are discussed in more detail later in the 
Darlene Halwas
Geoff Batstone