Requirements, Monitoring Activities, Trends and Results

2021 Compliance Monitoring Report

Reflecting on five years of compliance activities

Participation in the CCTS

The CRTC requirement for service providers to participate in the CCTS

The CRTC requires a service provider to become a participant in the CCTS when the CCTS receives an in-scope complaint from a customer about that service provider.^[5] When a service provider fails to join the CCTS as required, the CCTS refers the service provider to the CRTC, which then considers whether to initiate enforcement action against that service provider.

In 2021, the CCTS initiated the sign-up process for 22 service providers that were required to become a PSP. Of these 22 service providers, the CCTS successfully signed up 18 providers. Four service providers – 8064555 Canada Corp. (Northern Rural Networks), 1784150 Ontario Inc. (TekData), VOIS Inc. and 9319-4082 Québec Inc. (Haute-Vitesse.com) – failed to become a participant and were referred to the CRTC. Since then, TekData has joined as a PSP.^[6]

The CRTC initiated a number of compliance and enforcement actions in 2021 against service providers due to their failure to sign up with the CCTS.

In Telecom Decision CRTC 2021-2 and Telecom Decision CRTC 2021-4, the CRTC determined that 7 service providers^[7] violated the Telecommunications Act when they failed to sign up with the CCTS when required to do so. Five of the service providers signed up and are now PSPs, and thus the CRTC did not take further enforcement action. Two of the service providers were found to be no longer operating or offering services within the scope of the CCTS’ mandate.^[8]
In May, the CRTC determined in Telecom Decision CRTC 2021-179 and Telecom Order CRTC 2021-180 that William Robert John McQuaid, operating under the business name MySignal.ca Solutions Inc. (“MySignal.ca”)^[9] contravened the Telecommunications Act due to MySignal.ca’s failure to become a participant in the CCTS. The CRTC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of $15,000 on Mr. McQuaid and ordered MySignal.ca to join the CCTS within 60 days of the order. MySignal.ca failed to do so, and the CCTS has notified the CRTC.
In October, the CRTC initiated a show cause proceeding against Net2Web Inc. for its failure to sign up with the CCTS.^[10]

The CCTS continues to receive complaints from customers whose service providers are not yet PSPs. Given the consequences of a provider’s failure to participate, the CCTS makes considerable effort to educate new service providers about the requirement to join and the consequences of any failure to participate.

New CCTS participants are now mostly smaller service providers

Given that the requirement to participate in the CCTS, which is triggered for telecom service providers by the receipt of a customer complaint, has existed since 2011 and the CCTS already has over 300 PSPs, the newest participants are typically very small service providers. The CCTS expends a considerable amount of effort to educate and work with these service providers to explain the regulatory requirement and benefits of CCTS participation. Sometimes, it can be challenging for the CCTS to contact and sign up very small providers — some may not be familiar with the CRTC or telecom industry regulations, and they may have limited resources and staff.

Over time, the CCTS has simplified the sign-up process and documents to ensure that service providers understand our process and their requirements to participate.

We continue to see success in getting new service providers to participate when required to do so. The CCTS signed up a significant majority – 82% (18 out of 22) – of the service providers that were required to join in 2021. From time to time, smaller service providers express concern about their ability to pay our nominal one-time sign-up fee.

We will continue to seek opportunities to streamline our sign-up process and work with smaller service providers to ensure they understand the requirement to participate in the CCTS.

Compliance with the complaint-handling process and the CCTS Procedural Code

All PSPs are required to adhere to the complaint-handling process outlined in the Procedural Code. PSP compliance with these requirements is integral to the CCTS’ ability to carry out our role effectively and efficiently. This section provides data on some of the Procedural Code requirements to which PSPs must adhere, with trends and further analyses provided on the following issues:

implementing resolutions agreed to by the customer and the PSP following the filing of a CCTS complaint, as well as implementing Recommendations and Decisions issued by the CCTS (Procedural Code sections 6.12, 12 and 13);
not threatening legal action, additional fees or disconnection of service because the customer has filed a CCTS complaint;
not asking customers to withdraw their CCTS complaint; and,
responding to an accepted complaint to identify a resolution, lack of resolution or objection to the acceptance of the complaint, as well as providing to CCTS a full and complete response to the complaint, which includes all relevant information and documentation (Procedural Code section 6.6).

When a PSP fails to comply with the Procedural Code requirements, this can hamper the CCTS’ complaint-handling process through unnecessary delay or worse, deprive a customer of their right to recourse. The CCTS monitors and tracks compliance with the Procedural Code by flagging non-compliance breaches^[11] and then works with non-compliant PSPs to ensure the issues are rectified. Full breach reviews and one-on-one engagement with PSPs are prioritized for “major” compliance breaches.

In order to determine the priority level of each compliance breach, the CCTS considers the following criteria:

the type of non-compliance;
the effect of non-compliance on customers;
the effect of non-compliance on CCTS;
the scale of the non-compliance (how many issues and duration of non-compliance);
the conduct of the PSP and whether or not it attempts to resolve the non-compliance;
the PSP’s state of compliance with other CCTS participation requirements; and
any other aggravating or mitigating factors.

In 2021, the CCTS staff flagged approximately 2,400 alleged compliance breaches of the Procedural Code arising in approximately 15,000 complaints.^[12] This section describes the Procedural Code breaches observed most frequently this year and identifies trends observed in the past few years.

PSPs must implement resolutions, Recommendations and Decisions (section 6.12, 12, 13)

Mutually accepted resolutions^[13], and Recommendations^[14] and Decisions^[15] issued by the CCTS are binding on PSPs and must be implemented. The CCTS considers a PSP’s failure to implement them as an issue of major non-compliance because of the impact it has on the customer. When the customer notifies the CCTS that a PSP has not implemented the resolution, Recommendation or Decision, the Compliance team treats these cases with high priority and works swiftly with the PSP to ensure implementation.

In 2021, the CCTS staff identified 16 confirmed breaches of this requirement.^[16] Notably, all 16 confirmed breaches related to non-implementation of resolutions. None of the breaches involved a PSP’s failure to implement a Recommendation or Decision issued by the CCTS. We are pleased to note that once we notified the PSPs, all of them rectified the non-compliance. Where a resolution was not implemented, the PSPs indicated it was as a result of human error or other issues beyond their control, e.g. postal issues.

Case Summary

PSP fails to implement a mutually acceptable resolution

A small business customer filed a complaint with the CCTS to dispute a $214 early cancellation fee for VOIP phone services. The PSP offered to credit the full amount and bring the customer’s account balance to $0. The customer agreed to the PSP offer. A few weeks later, the customer notified the CCTS that the service provider had not provided the credit. The CCTS followed up with the PSP which acknowledged it did not apply the credit due to human error. The CCTS confirmed a breach of section 6.12 of the Procedural Code and worked with the PSP to ensure it rectified the issue by applying the credit.

Reflecting on trends

Overall, the CCTS has observed a decrease in the number of confirmed cases in which a PSP failed to implement resolutions, Recommendations and Decisions.

Figure 3.1: PSPs failure to implement resolutions, Recommendations and Decisions, year over year overview

The CCTS considers a PSP’s failure to implement a Recommendation or Decision as the most serious instance of non-compliance. When a complaint is concluded at the Recommendation or Decision level, the CCTS has fully investigated the complaint and determined that the PSP needs to take specific actions to remedy the matter. A PSP that fails to implement a Recommendation or Decision deprives the customer of the remedy to which the customer is entitled and undermines the CCTS’ complaints resolution process.

Over the last five years, the CCTS has observed only seven complaints in which a PSP failed to implement a Recommendation or Decision. The CCTS treats these cases with the highest priority and urgently takes action to notify the PSP of its failure, provides formal warnings that the PSP may be terminated if it does not implement the Recommendation or Decision, and will terminate the PSP’s participation in the CCTS if it does not come into compliance. The CCTS terminated the participation of two PSPs for failing to implement a Recommendation: SkyChoice Communications Inc.^[17] and AllCore Communications Inc.^[18] As noted in previous compliance reports, the CCTS worked with AllCore and SkyChoice to ensure they understood the importance of implementing the Recommendations issued and they did not comply. AllCore has since rectified its non-compliance and rejoined the CCTS but SkyChoice has not.^[19]

PSPs must not threaten customers with legal action, fees or disconnection of the customer’s service because of a CCTS complaint

Customers should not be threatened by a PSP for complaining to the CCTS – it is the customer’s right to seek recourse and they should not be penalized for simply exercising their right. Occasionally, the CCTS hears from a customer that their PSP is threatening them with legal action (i.e. take the customer to court) or additional fees for the CCTS complaint. The CCTS tracks these allegations and considers them to be instances of major non-compliance when we can reasonably conclude that the PSP did engage in this unacceptable behaviour. The CCTS treats these cases with high priority – we inform the PSP that it is not allowed to make such threats and seek confirmation that the offending conduct will stop immediately.

In 2021, the CCTS noted one incident in which 4pairless communications inc. (“4pairless”) threatened to disconnect a customer’s services because the customer complained to the CCTS. The CCTS engaged with 4pairless, which clarified that the services were not cut off. The CCTS is working with the PSP to ensure better understanding of its participation requirements.

In recent years, the CCTS has confirmed a few cases in which PSPs threatened to sue a customer for filing a complaint with the CCTS. PSPs must not threaten or penalize customers for filing a complaint at the CCTS. If customers feel that their PSP is penalizing them for exercising their right to file a complaint, they should bring it to our attention right away. Where this behaviour comes to our attention, CCTS will work expeditiously to educate the PSP, and confirm that the conduct has ceased.

PSPs must not ask customers to withdraw their CCTS complaints

PSPs asking a customer to withdraw their complaint at the CCTS is an issue of major non-compliance. When a PSP engages in this behaviour, the PSP is not participating in good faith as it is trying to circumvent the requirement to respond to complaints. This type of situation can create problems later, as the customer will be unable to benefit from the protection of the CCTS Procedural Code if the PSP fails to implement an agreed-upon resolution after the customer withdraws their complaint.

When the CCTS finds out that a PSP has asked a customer to withdraw their complaint, the CCTS informs the customer of their right to continue with the complaint-handling process and explains the risks of withdrawing their complaint. In particular, the CCTS informs the customer that if a complaint is withdrawn, then the CCTS will likely be unable to help ensure that the PSP implements the resolution it promised the customer as the enticement for withdrawing the complaint.

In 2021, CCTS flagged 20 alleged breaches for this behaviour and confirmed three breaches in which the PSP^[20] asked the customer to withdraw their complaint.^[21]In two of the cases, the PSPs explained they were unaware that they should not ask the customer to withdraw their complaint. Our Compliance team educated the PSPs and they agreed to avoid this practice in the future. In the third case, 4pairless was confirmed to be non-compliant for asking the customer to withdraw the complaint, in addition to threatening to disconnect the customer’s service as discussed above.

Reflecting on trends

The CCTS tracks incidents in which a PSP asks the customer to withdraw their CCTS complaint as a condition to resolution.

Figure 3.2: PSPs asking customers to withdraw complaints, year over year

CCTS notes a total of 64 allegations of this behaviour between 2019 and 2021. The threshold to confirm whether this occurred is high because documentation of PSPs making such a request is rare. Since the CCTS started tracking this issue in 2019, the CCTS has confirmed a total of 8 incidents in which PSPs asked the customer to withdraw their complaint. The CCTS will continue to engage PSPs that are involved in this behaviour and educate them on their participation requirements.

PSPs that indicate to the CCTS that a complaint is resolved must have actually obtained a mutually accepted resolution (section 6.6(b))

If a PSP and customer mutually agree to resolve a complaint at the pre-investigation stage,^[22] then the PSP must provide a written response to the CCTS and to the customer indicating the complaint is resolved, as required by section 6.6(b) of the Procedural Code. After a PSP indicates to the CCTS that a complaint is resolved, the complaint is closed and the customer has twenty days to dispute the response submitted by the PSP.

PSPs are required to tell the CCTS that a complaint is resolved only when the PSP has confirmed that it has reached a mutually accepted resolution with the customer, or when it is providing the entirety of the resolution that the customer requested.

In 2021, CCTS flagged 174 alleged breaches of this behaviour. We were able to confirm 52 breaches in which the PSP incorrectly explained to the CCTS that a complaint was mutually resolved with the customer, when it had not been.^[23] One PSP incorrectly marked complaints as resolved in a handful of complaints. For example, in one complaint, the PSP noted the complaint status as resolved, but the written response indicated: “this matter remains unresolved and shall proceed to an investigation stage with the CCTS.” We identified this in at least five complaints, and we plan to address the situation with the PSP.

Reflecting on trends

Since 2020, the CCTS tracks and monitors instances where a PSP incorrectly submits a “resolved” response to complaints despite the complaint not being resolved to the customer’s satisfaction. When the CCTS is able to confirm the customer did not actually agree to resolve the complaint, we identify this as a confirmed breach of section 6.6(b). The CCTS flagged 62 breaches and confirmed 35 breaches in 2020. Amongst the flagged issues that were not confirmed after review, the CCTS noted clear misunderstandings between the PSP and customer. In such situations, the CCTS will discuss the issue with both parties to find a solution that satisfies everyone. If it isn’t possible and the PSP’s resolution letter is unclear, the customer can be given the option to proceed to investigation.

Figure 3.3: PSPs incorrectly notifying the CCTS of a mutually acceptable resolution

The CCTS observes a considerable increase in the number of confirmed breaches in which a PSP incorrectly explained to the CCTS that there was a mutually acceptable resolution. The CCTS will continue to monitor this issue and will engage PSPs which incorrectly respond that a complaint is resolved.

PSPs must respond to unresolved complaints at pre-investigation with all required information (section 6.6(c))

If a PSP and customer cannot agree to a resolution at the pre-investigation stage, the PSP is required to provide to CCTS a written response to the complaint within 30 days of receipt of the complaint. The PSP’s response regarding an unresolved complaint must address all complaint allegations and provide supporting documentation in accordance with section 6.6(c) of the Procedural Code. As noted in the CCTS’ complaint-handling process, the CCTS investigates unresolved complaints at the Investigation stage and reviews both parties’ documents to determine whether the PSP met its obligations to the customer. When PSPs fail to provide the documents or a complete response to allegations in the unresolved complaint, it impacts the CCTS’ ability to investigate complaints efficiently and effectively.

The CCTS tracks and monitors two compliance issues for PSP unresolved complaint responses:

when the PSP provides no response at all to the CCTS; and
when the PSP responds that a complaint is unresolved but provides insufficient or no supporting documentation.

Both of these situations impact the length of time it takes to address customer complaints. Customers want their complaints to be handled as quickly as possible. At the same time, the CCTS requires information and documentation from PSPs and needs to allow PSPs extra time to provide them if the PSP did not respond sufficiently within 30 days. Consequently, the extra time for PSPs to provide the information that should have already been provided to the CCTS increases complaint-handling time, often frustrating the customer and worse yet, further exacerbating the rift between parties. In other words, the longer the PSP drags out the length of time to handling complaints, the more challenging it becomes for the CCTS to mediate and resolve them.

In 2021, the CCTS observed a resurgence of breaches regarding “unresolved” responses at pre-investigation with 1,149 alleged breaches. In other words, the CCTS continues to observe a concerning trend that PSPs are not fulfilling their requirement to provide a response or all supporting documentation with their response to an unresolved complaint at the initial pre-investigation level.

Figure 3.4: PSP responses to unresolved complaint breaches, year over year

Case Summary

PSP’s failure to provide required information in response to unresolved complaint at pre-investigation delays the complaint investigation

Before submitting a complaint to the CCTS, a customer complained to the PSP about charges for wireless long-distance calling and spent a couple of months unsuccessfully trying to resolve the matter directly with the PSP. The customer complained to the CCTS and after the initial 30-day period at the pre-investigation stage, the PSP submitted an “unresolved” response and provided no supporting documents. The complaint proceeded to the investigation stage, at which point the CCTS complaint resolution officer was required to follow up with the PSP to ask for the missing documents and information. It took an additional 14 days for the PSP to provide the necessary material. This additional delay increased the customer’s frustration because he had already spent months trying to resolve the issue. The CCTS flagged a breach of section 6.6(c) in this complaint.

Reflecting on trends

In 2020, the CCTS began tracking a particular sub-category of these “unresolved” responses – the number of complaints when the PSP provided no response at all. Of the 1,149 alleged breaches of section 6.6(c) in 2021, the CCTS identified 146 breaches where the PSP did not provide a response to CCTS. Even though there has been notable improvement from last year, the PSP response to unresolved complaints is so fundamental to CCTS’ processes that we consider the number of breaches to be very high. For a full list of the 146 PSPs which failed to respond at the pre-investigation stage, which then triggered escalation of the complaint to the investigation stage, see Appendix A.

Figure 3.5: Type of “unresolved” responses, year over year

The CCTS remains concerned with the considerable increase in incomplete “unresolved” responses. In 2020, there were 527 alleged breaches and in 2021, the CCTS flagged almost double the number of instances – 996 alleged breaches – in which PSPs submitted an incomplete response to an unresolved complaint.

When submitting “unresolved” responses at the pre-investigation level, the CCTS requires that PSPs: a) respond to all unresolved allegations in the complaint; and b) provide all of the relevant documentation to investigate the complaint. The CCTS has provided guidance for PSPs on what documentation is required and intends to continue to engage with PSPs, so PSPs better understand the requirement.

PSPs must follow the rules when objecting to complaints (section 6.6(a))

The CCTS Procedural Code authorizes the CCTS to accept telecom and television-related complaints, with certain exceptions. PSPs can object to the CCTS accepting a customer complaint if they believe that the subject of the complaint falls into one of these exceptions. These “objections” must be filed with the CCTS within 15 days of the CCTS informing the PSP that it has accepted the complaint. The PSP must explain the reason for its objection and provide supporting documentation so that the CCTS can assess the merits of the objection.

CCTS staff identify an objection breach^[24] under section 6.6(a) of the Procedural Code when the PSP submits:

a late objection (after the 15-day deadline);
an incomplete objection (missing an explanation or supporting documentation); or
a “merit-based” objection, where the PSP objects to the CCTS accepting the complaint not due to any procedural or jurisdictional reason identified in the Procedural Code, but rather because it believes that there is no merit to the customer’s complaint. Objections to complaints based on their merit will be rejected as the merits of the complaint can only be assessed during an investigation, should the complaint get to that stage of the process. The CCTS does not and will not accept merit-based objections to a complaint, which is standard practice for ombuds organizations, and flags this as non-compliance.

Since 2018, the CCTS has tracked the number of objection breaches. The CCTS notes that the number of objections breaches remains similar with 309 breaches^[25] in 2021 compared to 301 breaches in 2020.

Figure 3.6: Objection breaches, year over year

Since mid-2020, the CCTS began tracking sub-categories of objection breaches to understand the trends within this category. Notably in 2021, the CCTS found 50% of the objections breaches were merit-based objections.

Figure 3.7: Types of Objections breaches in 2021

The CCTS is concerned about the prevalence of merit-based objections considering it has engaged with PSPs on this topic in the past and provided extensive resources^[26] to PSPs to better explain proper uses of its objections process. The CCTS will continue to monitor the data and will seek to engage PSPs which continue to submit improper merit-based objections.

Compliance with the Public Awareness Plan

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 video content for our YouTube page, regular public newsletters, social media activities, and providing media outlets with information and data.

Participating service providers (PSPs) also contribute to building public awareness about the CCTS by carrying out the requirements of the CCTS’ Public Awareness Plan, “Developing Public Awareness of the CCTS”. PSP activities towards increasing awareness about the CCTS empowers customers and demonstrates PSP commitment to consumer protection.

A key objective of the PSP Public Awareness Plan is to ensure that information about the CCTS is readily available to customers when they need it – in most cases, when they encounter a problem. While the level of public awareness about the CCTS is not yet where we would like it to be, our Compliance program plays an important part in ensuring that PSPs are doing their part to provide key information about CCTS to their customers. Our Compliance program will continue to carefully audit and monitor compliance with the PSP Public Awareness Plan.

Public Awareness Plan requirements for PSPs

The Public Awareness Plan requirements fall into the following four categories:

1. CCTS notice and web site links on PSPs’ websites

PSPs must display a specific message on their website informing customers of the CCTS, including information on how to contact the CCTS. This information should be on a dedicated “complaints page” detailing the PSP’s internal complaint-handling process. Additionally, the path to this complaints page must be clearly labelled, easy-to-find and no further than 2 clicks away from the home page.

The CCTS prescribed website message explains that customers must first to try resolve the issue with their PSP. However, PSPs should not give the impression – either through additional language or positioning of the prescribed CCTS notice on their websites – that the CCTS is available only after customers exhaust a multi-step escalation process.

Further, if a PSP website has a search function, it should return a link to the complaints page when a search includes any of the following keywords: “complaint”, “dispute”, “CRTC”, “CCTS”, “commission” and “ombudsman”.

2. Customer bill messages

PSPs must include a prescribed message about the CCTS on customer bills. This message must appear at least four times a year and be placed in a reasonably prominent location compared to other notices of a similar nature. Customers who do not receive bills must be informed about the CCTS by another means, such as the portal they use to purchase pre-paid time or through free text messages.

In addition, customers reviewing invoices or website notices should not be left with the impression that certain subject matters are out of scope, unless permitted by the PSP Public Awareness Plan. When a customer sees the CCTS’ prescribed notice, they must understand there is an independent dispute resolution service available; any added messaging about CCTS availability should be avoided.

3. Customer notification by PSPs

When a customer brings a complaint to their PSP which they cannot resolve, the PSP must inform the customer of their right of recourse to the CCTS no later than the second level of escalation. This means that if the second level of escalation is unable to resolve the issue, they must inform the customer about the availability of the CCTS. For PSPs which do not have an internal escalation process, customers must be informed of the CCTS by frontline agents. Multiple contacts with different frontline agents are not considered an escalation.

4. White Pages message and text

PSPs that publish White Pages directories must include a specific message about the CCTS in the White Pages. The location of this insert should be reasonably prominent compared to notices of a similar nature. Additionally, it should be placed in a logical manner, where a customer with a potential complaint is likely to find it.

Who and what we audited in 2021

In 2021, the CCTS audited 58 PSPs for compliance with the Public Awareness Plan. This included:

The 25 PSPs that generated the most CCTS complaints in the previous year, as listed in the 2019-2020 Annual Report. These PSPs accounted for about 94% of all complaints accepted by the CCTS.
5 PSPs identified as non-compliant in 2021. Throughout the year, the Compliance team engages with some PSPs for specific non-compliance issues requiring a more in-depth engagement.
28 randomly selected PSPs. This category ensures that all PSPs, regardless of their size and general compliance status, can be reviewed to determine their compliance with the Public Awareness requirements.

The CCTS undertakes two types of Public Awareness Plan monitoring activities, depending on the category each PSP belongs to:

Website audits. The CCTS reviews websites of all PSPs in the 3 above-mentioned categories to ensure that all required information is available on the provider’s website in order for customers to easily find out about the CCTS.
Documentation audits. The CCTS reviews invoices, white pages and internal PSP process documents pertaining to the PSP’s complaint-handling process. These audits are reserved for the 25 PSPs that generated the most CCTS complaints.

Regardless of the PSP category or monitoring activity type, the CCTS follows up with PSPs to present the audit results and, in the event of any deficiencies, to explain what is expected of them to come into compliance. PSPs are required to provide a response within 30 days of receiving the results, explaining how and when any identified issues will be addressed. Our Compliance team continues to work with PSPs until all identified issues have been resolved.

2021 Public Awareness Plan audit results

The below sections discuss the results of the Public Awareness Plan audits.

NEW COMPLIANCE ISSUE: The CCTS Notice Must be Positioned and Contextualized Fairly

While conducting the audits in 2021, we noticed a new issue with the way the CCTS notice was contextualized on some PSP websites and invoices. Specifically, the CCTS observed that some PSPs were:

adding language on the website or positioning the CCTS message to indicate that a customer must exhaust a specific number of steps in the PSP’s internal complaint-handling process before going to the CCTS; or
listing certain matters as out of scope^[27] for the CCTS on their websites or invoices.

As a result of these trends, the CCTS is concerned that customers^[28] may be left with the inaccurate impression that they either must exhaust a number of non-required steps to file a CCTS complaint^[29] or that they are unable to file a CCTS complaint at all. This would frustrate the objective of the Public Awareness Plan. It is important that there are no perceived barriers to accessing CCTS’ services.

We informed PSPs which were found non-compliant on these issues why it is problematic that the websites and invoices were set up this way. We also provided guidance and worked with each individual PSP that had this issue with its website or invoices so that they understand the required measures and had a plan to take steps to change the language or positioning to become compliant.

1. Website Review

The CCTS audited 57 PSP websites^[30] in order to ensure their customers have access to the required information, such as how the customer can contact the CCTS.

Figure 3.8: Website review – Results per section, all PSP categories

Based on these audits, the CCTS identified the following main issues among the 57 PSPs audited:

Although most PSPs had CCTS information somewhere on their websites (41 PSPs), only 23 of them had the CCTS information displayed on their complaint page, as required by the Public Awareness Plan. This is a decrease from 2020, when 36 of 43 PSPs who had CCTS information on their site properly placed the CCTS notice on the complaint page of their websites.
Of the 41 PSPs displaying CCTS information somewhere on their websites, we note a slight increase in the number of PSPs having a link to the CCTS website, moving from 33 in 2020 to 35 in 2021. The remaining 22 PSPs – including those that did not have CCTS information available anywhere on their websites – were deemed non-compliant with these sections.
The “clearly labeled and easy-to-find path” criterion remained a major non-compliance issue, as only 31 of the 57 PSPs were considered compliant. Additionally, 20 of the 31 compliant PSPs for this criterion were in the top 24 PSPs. Compared to 2021, there is slight improvement as 28 PSPs were found to have a clearly labeled and easy to find path.
Of the 38 PSPs that had a search function on their website, the vast majority (27) were found non-compliant with the Public Awareness Plan requirements for not being able to return the required CCTS results. These results are likely because of updates made to PSP websites without verifying if those updates impact continued compliance with the Public Awareness Plan search function requirement.
We noted 12 PSPs had additional language on their website advising a customer must exhaust certain steps before complaining to the CCTS. Of these, there were only 3 PSPs that otherwise would have been fully compliant.

Ten PSPs were fully compliant with the website requirements of the Public Awareness Plan.^[31] After notifying PSPs of deficiencies and working with each of them, we were able to confirm that 22 PSPs came into full compliance. This means that 32 PSPs are now compliant with the website requirements of the Public Awareness Plan. Additionally, the CCTS received responses from 13 other PSPs that confirmed they are working on their website to address the compliance issues. Two PSPs remain non-compliant as they have not yet identified how they intend to implement changes to become compliant. The remaining 10 PSPs^[32] did not respond to the CCTS’ audit results and attempts to discuss their non-compliance. Our Compliance team will continue to reach out and follow our escalation process to ensure that all non-compliant items are addressed. We will consider what other compliance steps CCTS can take, particularly for PSPs that are not responsive to CCTS’ notices of non-compliance.

For the full results per section with year-over-year changes, see Appendix B.

Reflecting on trends

Each year, the CCTS audits PSP compliance with the Public Awareness Plan. When we first started compliance activities in 2017, the CCTS had 360 PSP brands.^[33] The CCTS now has more than 420 PSP brands. Between 2018 and 2021, we audited the websites of 209 PSP brands.

Between 2019 and 2021, the CCTS found that most PSP websites that were audited had mixed results concerning compliance with website requirements of the Public Awareness Plan. Generally, the CCTS finds that PSPs are compliant with the requirement to include information about the CCTS somewhere on their websites, including the link, logo and prescribed message. The non-compliance issues identified over the years are mostly about where and how that information is presented for customers that visit PSP websites. For example, the Public Awareness Plan requires that the PSP complaints page is where PSPs must provide notice about the CCTS. Between 2020 and 2021, there was an increase from 43% to 60% of PSPs who were non-compliant because the PSP’s complaints page did not include the required CCTS information on that page.

PSPs have varying website designs and structures and each PSP determines where on their websites they believe they should include information about how customers can obtain recourse and information about the CCTS. The CCTS looks to see if the information is accessible and easy to find for customers.

Additionally, we are seeing an increase in the proportion of PSPs that are non-compliant with the website search function requirement. In 2019, we identified 27% of the PSPs whose website search function did not return the required results. This increased to 35% in 2020 and 47% in 2021. Based on our individual engagement with PSPs on this issue, we have observed that this is likely due to PSPs updating their websites without checking that their updates are compliant with the Public Awareness Plan requirement.

The CCTS encourages PSPs to check for compliance with the Public Awareness Plan when updating their websites

The Public Awareness Plan website requirements ensure that customers can learn about the CCTS relatively easily on PSP websites. The CCTS noticed that PSPs with previously compliant website notices may become non-compliant following a website update. In their regular course of business, PSPs may restructure their website pages or redesign content. PSP websites may become non-compliant if they do not design website updates with Public Awareness Plan requirements in mind. For example, when PSPs update their website and put the CCTS information in smaller font or add an additional hyperlink that the customer needs to click to view the CCTS information, it is less intuitive and more challenging for a customer to navigate the website. We encourage PSPs to build checks into their regular website maintenance process so that the website notice about the CCTS is always easy to find and compliant with the CCTS Public Awareness Plan.

For full results by section with year-over-year changes, see Appendix B.

2. Documentation Review

In 2021, the CCTS audited the documentation – e.g. invoices, white pages and internal complaint-handling process – of the 25 PSPs that generated the most complaints in 2019-20. This year, the CCTS observes the following trends:

16 out of 25 PSPs were found compliant with all Public Awareness Plan documentation requirements and these PSPs did not need to make any changes.
Of the 9 PSPs which were non-compliant in some respect, no PSP was found non-compliant with all Public Awareness Plan requirements, and all PSPs responded to the CCTS inquiries. This marks an improvement from last year, where one PSP was found non-compliant with the entirety of the Public Awareness Plan requirements, and another one failed to respond on time to a CCTS request for additional information.
The compliance issues identified for the 9 PSPs were varied:
- Three PSPs had incorrect or outdated information about the availability of the CCTS in internal documentation about their complaint escalation process. The CCTS checks that PSPs’ internal documentation of its complaint escalation processes properly notify customers about the availability of the CCTS at the right level. Two PSPs’ internal documents about the complaint escalation process provided incorrect information about when to advise the customer about the CCTS: one did not advise about CCTS at the right level, and the other suggested that the customer needed to mention the CCTS in order to be informed about their right to file a complaint to the CCTS. The third PSP’s internal documents indicated that broadcasting services are out of scope, despite the addition of TV services to the CCTS mandate as of September 1, 2017.
- Four PSPs included out of scope matters for the CCTS on their invoices, next to the prescribed CCTS notice. PSPs must only include the prescribed CCTS language and not add language that suggests certain complaints – e.g. pricing or equipment issues – are not within the CCTS mandate, as in many cases there is judgement involved in determining whether a particular complaint falls with the CCTS mandate – a judgement that CCTS makes in assessing complaints. When a customer sees the CCTS’ prescribed notice, they must understand there is an independent dispute resolution service available; any added messaging that the CCTS is not available or there are barriers to accessing that service must not be included. The CCTS engaged with these four PSPs, which agreed to address the issue by removing the offending text on a going-forward basis.
- Two PSPs failed to provide four invoices with the CCTS notice within a 12-month period. These PSPs indicated that they would update their system to ensure compliance on a going-forward basis, and the CCTS will monitor implementation.

After completing the audit of each PSP’s documentation, the CCTS engaged with non-compliant PSPs on an individual basis to discuss the results. The CCTS confirms that 23 out of 25 PSPs are now fully compliant and 2 PSPs will update their system to be compliant going forward.

Reflecting on trends

The CCTS notes a clear improvement in compliance with the Public Awareness Plan documentation requirements over the last few years. This is reflected in a decrease in the number of non-compliant PSPs. In 2019 there were 13 PSPs with one or more non-compliance issues, whereas in 2021 there were only 5. This positive trend shows that previous years of engagement are effectively impacting the information presented to customers about the CCTS through invoices, white pages, or when escalating complaints through a PSP’s internal process.

For full results by section with year-over-year changes, see Appendix C.

Providing financial information to CCTS and paying CCTS fees

In order to offer free services to consumers, the CCTS is funded on a cost-recovery basis by the PSPs. The CCTS funding model distributes the financial weight of its operations among PSPs based on a formula that includes the amount of their retail forborne revenues and the number of complaints received from their customers. In order to apply this formula, PSPs are required to annually disclose their retail revenues to the CCTS. When PSPs fail to provide financial information or fail to pay their bills to the CCTS, it adds costs, which must be borne by all the other PSPs, and needlessly consumes CCTS resources.

To focus efforts on complaint-handling activities and ensure compliance with financial obligations, the CCTS monitors whether PSPs have complied with 1) disclosure of financial information, and 2) payment of CCTS fees.

1. Disclosure of financial information

Every year, to determine the PSPs’ retail forborne revenues, PSPs are required to provide certified financial information.

In 2021, 75 out of 302 service providers did not comply with the requirement to provide us with financial information.

See Appendix D for the full list of non-compliant PSPs.

It is a particularly challenging annual endeavour to obtain the financial information from all PSPs, especially from smaller service providers. Nevertheless, a significant majority of PSPs have provided this information to the CCTS year after year. Between 2018 and 2021, we have received on average a 75% response rate of PSPs providing financial information to the CCTS.

2. Payment of CCTS fees

The CCTS bills PSPs on a quarterly basis, and PSPs are required to pay their fees promptly. PSPs owing more than $1,000 for over 90 days are referred to a third-party collection agency. As of December 31, 2021, 20 service providers owed fees that qualify for collection activity, as listed in Appendix E.

In November 2021, the CCTS terminated the participation of a PSP, Maple Call Inc. (“Maple Call”), for failure to pay a long-standing and significant outstanding balance. Maple Call’s failure to pay CCTS fees extended over two years, despite CCTS’ efforts to engage with the PSP to bring it into compliance and come up with an acceptable payment plan. The CCTS has referred the matter to the CRTC for further action.^[34]

Footnotes

BTRP 2016-102, at para 45. Licensed TV service providers are required to participate when mandated to do so by the CRTC.
In March 2022, the CRTC initiated a show cause enforcement proceeding against 9319-4082 Québec Inc. (Haute-Vitesse.com). The record of the proceeding closed in May 2022 and the CRTC has not yet rendered a decision.
Rafiki Technologies Inc., Golden Rural High Speed, Redbox Solutions Ltd., Total Cable Services Inc., WISP Internet Services Inc., SkyNet Data Networks Inc. / SkyNet Wireless Networks Inc. / SkyNet Canada Inc. and Pure Channel Communications Inc.
This excludes SkyNet Data Networks Inc. / SkyNet Wireless Networks Inc. / SkyNet Canada Inc. because it was dissolved and Pure Channel Communications Inc. as it is no longer providing services within the scope of the CCTS’ mandate.
As well as any other entity under Mr. McQuaid’s effective control that is providing telecom services within the mandate of the CCTS.
Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2021-338 was published in October 2021 and the record closed in December 2021. As of the date of this publication, the CRTC has not rendered a decision.
Each compliance breach references an individual section of the Procedural Code. There can also be multiple compliance breaches in an individual complaint.
The CCTS accepted 14,923 complaints between January 1 and December 31, 2021.
Mutually acceptable resolutions are when the PSP and Customer agree to a specific outcome to resolve a complaint filed with the CCTS.
The CCTS will issue a Recommendation where the complaint was fully investigated, and the service provider has not made an offer to informally resolve the complaint or the offer is not found to be reasonable based on the specific circumstances of the complaint. The Recommendation requires that the provider take specific actions to resolve the matter.
The CCTS issues a Decision 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, the Commissioner 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, in which case the PSP is released from the requirement to implement the Decision.
PSPs confirmed as non-compliant for section 6.12: Bell (5), Rogers (3), Virgin (2), Cogeco (2), Primus (1), TELUS (1), Acanac (1), and Comwave (1).
CCTS media release, Telecom-television ombudsman takes formal steps against non-compliant service provider, July 22, 2021.
CCTS media release, CCTS terminates participation of AllCore Communications due to non-compliance, September 7, 2018.
At the time of writing, SkyChoice is challenging the events that led to termination through legal proceedings.
PSPs confirmed as non-compliant with the requirement: CM Link China Mobile (1); Comwave (1); and 4pairless (1).
In the 2020 Compliance Monitoring Report, we refer to this non-compliance issue as “PSPs not participating in good faith in the CCTS complaint-handling process.”
Pre-investigation is the stage of the CCTS’ process following referral of the complaint to the PSP by CCTS, in which the parties have 30 days to resolve the complaint, failing which the CCTS will begin an investigation to assess whether the service provider reasonably performed its obligations to the customer.
The CCTS reviewed 60% of alleged breaches for this category.
Each objection can raise more than one compliance issue (e.g. breach for response submitted past the 15-day deadline and merit-based objection).
Between January 1 and December 31, 2021, we received a total of 1,463 complaint objections.
For example, the CCTS explains the objections process and provides information for PSPs in the Annotated Guide to the Procedural Code, pages 32 – 35 and in an Instruction Module on Objections available on the PSP Portal.
The complaint areas highlighted as out-of-scope (e.g. pricing, equipment issues) are not black-and-white areas, and there are many instances where complaints concerning pricing and equipment could be in-scope. These scope issues are discussed in greater detail in CCTS’ Annotated Guide to the Procedural Code.
The CCTS is particularly concerned about how this would be a problem for consumers in Canada that are considered vulnerable due to age, disability, and/or language barrier.
Customers must first try to work with their PSP and give them a “reasonable opportunity” to address their complaint. However, this does not require a customer to exhaust or escalate their complaint within the PSP’s internal complaint handling process or spend a minimum amount of time addressing the complaint with their PSP. In fact, the CCTS cannot accept a complaint unless the customer has provided their PSP with a reasonable opportunity to resolve it. For more details, see the CCTS’ Annotated Guide to the Procedural Code (page 45).
One selected PSP did not have its own website and therefore was not included in the assessment. CCTS completed a documentation audit only for that PSP.
PSPs found to be fully compliant with the website requirements in CCTS’ audit were: ACN Canada, Cable Axion, Chatr, Koodo, Lucky Mobile, Pathway Communications, Primus, Public Mobile, Shaw Communications, and Shaw Direct.
Non-compliant PSPs that did not respond to the CCTS: Allo Telecom; CiteNet Internet; City Wide Communications Inc; Ebox Inc.; Negotel; NFTC; Phone Power; Talkit; CaspianWave; and ICA.
2017-18 CCTS Annual Report, page 2.
CCTS Media release, “Telecom-television ombudsman takes formal steps against non-compliant service provider for repeatedly failing to pay CCTS fees”.

For best results, print using Google Chrome

Français