2022 Compliance Monitoring Report

Executive Summary

2022 Compliance Monitoring Report

The Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (“CCTS”) is Canada’s national and independent organization dedicated to resolving customer complaints about telecommunications and television distribution services.  After a service provider joins the CCTS as a Participating Service Provider (“PSP”), it is required to adhere to the CCTS obligations outlined in the Participation Agreement, including:

  1. complying with the CCTS Procedural Code, which contains the rules for CCTS’ complaint-handling process;
  2. carrying out the the PSP Public Awareness Plan (“Developing Public Awareness of the CCTS”), which sets out PSPs’ obligations to promote customer awareness of the CCTS;
  3. 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.

Each year, the CCTS publishes an annual Compliance Monitoring Report that highlights our activities and the issues we observed in the preceding year, which includes identifying non-compliant PSPs. We strive to continuously improve our compliance activities based on feedback from our stakeholders – consumers, the CRTC, and PSPs.

Key results and highlights from our 2022 compliance activities

Complaint handling requirements

In May 2023, the CCTS transitioned to a new complaint-handling process to enhance our service delivery to customers and providers. These process changes streamline and simplify the complaints process, allow us to resolve complaints more quickly and increase transparency about how we make determinations about complaints.

PSPs’ obligations under our updated process remain largely the same: PSPs must respond to CCTS after receiving a complaint, submit all relevant documents when a complaint remains unresolved  and implement all resolutions and CCTS findings. These obligations continue to ensure that the CCTS’ complaint-handling process can proceed effectively in a timely manner and that consumers receive the recourse they are entitled to.

This report discusses compliance from January 1 to December 31, 2022 with the Procedural Code requirements in effect at the time, before it was amended in May 2023.

In 2022, we observed improvements in PSPs’ compliance with the CCTS’ rules:

  • We saw a decrease in objection breaches compared to previous years.
  • We saw fewer allegations of, and did not confirm any, breaches from PSPs asking customers to withdraw their complaint from the CCTS’ processes.

We also observed opportunities for PSPs to improve their compliance with the CCTS’ rules:

  • There is a significant increase of compliance breaches in which PSPs incorrectly report that a complaint was mutually resolved with the customer. Common examples include the PSP does not contact the customer to discuss the resolution, or simply disagrees with the customer’s position that the complaint is unresolved.
  • We see a continued increase of PSP failure to respond to the complaint within the required timeline or provide us with relevant documents. We will monitor this closely in our updated complaint-handling process.
  • We saw more instances in which PSPs did not implement resolutions and remedies in CCTS findings in a timely manner. Many breaches for non-implementation of resolutions happen when a PSP takes too long to apply a credit on the customer’s account. Significant CCTS compliance efforts are needed when a PSP refuses to provide a customer with required remedies.

Notably, we terminated ICA Microsystems Inc.’s (“ICA”) participation in the CCTS because it failed to refund a customer and waive charges, as required in a Decision we issued in December 2022. As part of that Decision, we investigated fees that ICA charged to the customer for filing a complaint with a third-party complaint-handling body, and we found that these charges were invalid, as they penalized the customer for seeking recourse to the CCTS. We consider ICA’s failure to implement the Decision to be major non-compliance, and the CCTS engaged in significant efforts to resolve these issues before terminating the participation of the PSP. As of the writing of this report, in 2023, ICA is working with the CCTS to rectify its non-compliance and to rejoin the CCTS as a participating service provider.

Moving forward, the CCTS will continue to closely monitor PSP compliance with our updated complaint-handling process and other participation requirements.

PSP Public Awareness Plan requirements

In 2022, we focused on providing PSPs with more proactive guidance and direction on our expectations. We also increased our engagement efforts with those PSPs which are not compliant. As a result, we observed significant improvements in PSPs’ compliance with their obligations in promoting public awareness about the CCTS:

  • As a result of our increased efforts to engage with non-compliant PSPs, 92% of audited PSPs are now compliant with their public awareness requirements.
  • Last year, we noted our concern that PSPs included additional language to their websites and invoices which could leave customers with the inaccurate impression that they either must exhaust a number of steps before they could file a CCTS complaint, or that they were unable to file a CCTS complaint at all. We were pleased to see that this issue largely did not recur.
  • After working with many of the same PSPs over the last five years, we were pleased to see that nearly 90% of the 25 PSPs audited were fully compliant with all Public Awareness Plan documentation requirements and these PSPs did not need to make any changes.

There continues to be an opportunity for PSPs to improve their compliance with the PSP website public awareness requirements. Information for customers about the PSP’s internal complaint handling process and the customer’s right to recourse to the CCTS should be presented more clearly or easier for consumers to find. In particular, this year we found:

  • the majority of PSP internal complaints pages were not clearly labelled or easy to find, and many failed to contain information about the CCTS;
  • the majority of PSP websites with a search function did not return the PSPs complaint page;
  • several PSP business websites do not contain information about the CCTS, all of which are required by Developing Public Awareness of the CCTS.

Although PSPs rectified these issues once we informed them, we are concerned about the recurrence of these issues each year, and plan to work with PSPs to avoid non-compliance in the future.

Introduction

2022 Compliance Monitoring Report

About the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services

The Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (“CCTS”) is Canada’s national and independent organization dedicated to resolving customer complaints[1] about telecommunications and television distribution services. As of December 31, 2022, there are 311 service providers, represented by 432 customer-facing brands that participate in the CCTS (referred to as Participating Service Providers or “PSPs”).

As participants in the CCTS, PSPs are required to carry out the requirements of the CCTS’ PSP Public Awareness Plan,[2] comply with the Procedural Code, and meet their financial obligations (e.g. disclose their retail revenues and pay CCTS fees). The CCTS actively monitors compliance with these participation requirements and engages with non-compliant PSPs to bring them into compliance.

The CCTS is required to promote and monitor PSP compliance with participation requirements

Since 2016, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) expects the CCTS to monitor and encourage PSP compliance with its obligations, and enforce these obligations by using the CCTS’ available tools such as publishing the names of non-compliant PSPs in a prominent manner.[3]

In 2023, the Government of Canada issued a new Policy Direction to the CRTC, with specific direction to enhance and protect the rights of consumers in a number of areas. This direction includes strengthening the ability of the CCTS to improve compliance with the CCTS’s rules and increase public awareness of the CCTS’ complaint-resolution process.

The CCTS’ compliance monitoring program remains integral to fulfilling the CRTC’s expectation and the Government of Canada’s policy direction.

The CCTS’ approach to non-compliance

In general, when we identify a non-compliance issue, we work with the PSP on an individual basis to explain the requirements, our expectations, and how the PSP can become compliant.  We find that many PSPs want to work with us to rectify any issues of non-compliance.  In some circumstances, we invest considerable time and effort to educate a PSP and work with it to bring it into compliance.  In the rare circumstances when the CCTS exhausts all its tools and the PSP fails to comply with major or long-standing non-compliance issues, the CCTS terminates the service provider as a participant in the CCTS.[4] Since the CRTC mandates participation by the provider, we refer the matter to the CRTC for further action. The CCTS does not resort to this enforcement measure until after we have made every effort to get a PSP to rectify its major non-compliance without success.

Each year, the CCTS publishes an annual Compliance Monitoring Report discussing the activities and issues we observed in the preceding year.  This report also highlights the enforcement measures taken and publicly identifies the names of service providers who failed to join the CCTS when required to do so, PSPs with major non-compliance issues, and any PSPs whose participation was terminated.

The CCTS strives to continuously improve compliance activities based on feedback from our stakeholders, including the PSPs, CRTC and consumers.  We prioritize communicating with PSPs on an individual basis to increase PSPs’ understanding of their participation requirements and to bring non-compliant PSPs into compliance.  As a result, our compliance efforts can take a considerable amount of time and effort.

Participation in the CCTS

2022 Compliance Monitoring Report

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. We maintain a list on our website of all service providers referred to the CRTC for failure to comply with the requirement to sign up.

In 2022, the CCTS initiated the sign-up process for 26 service providers that were required to become a PSP. We signed up 21 providers.  Four service providers – Optitel Mobile, 360 Net Solutions Staffing Corp. (Dunn Vision Telecom), 9212-4080 Quebec Inc. (Secuconn) and Systèmes Byzantines Inc. (Byzantines Internet) – failed to become a participant of the CCTS and were referred to the CRTC. We did not complete the sign up for one provider because of insufficient information.

The CRTC initiated a number of compliance and enforcement actions in 2022 against service providers due to their failure to sign up with the CCTS.

  • In March 2022, the CRTC initiated a show cause proceeding against 9319-4082 Québec inc. (Haute-Vitesse.com) for its failure to become a participant of the CCTS (Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2022-63). In January 2023, the CRTC issued a decision (Telecom Decision CRTC 2023-7) finding that 9319-4082 Québec Inc. (Haute-Vitesse.com) violated the Telecommunications Act for failing to become a participant in the CCTS from June 2021 to its dissolution in February 2022 but that it is no longer providing services that fall within the scope of the CCTS. .
  • In November 2022, the CRTC issued Telecom Decision CRTC 2022-323 and Telecom Order CRTC 2022-323, which ordered Net2Web Inc. to join the CCTS within 60 days of the order. The CRTC also imposed a $50,000 penalty on Net2Web Inc. and a $15,000 penalty on Naved Ashraf, the director of Net2Web Inc., for failing to join the CCTS. Net2Web Inc. failed to join the CCTS within 60 days of the order, and the CCTS advised the CRTC accordingly.

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 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 400 PSPs, the newest participants are typically very small service providers. 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. 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.

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 – 81% (21 out of 26) – of the service providers that were required to join in 2022.

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

2022 Compliance Monitoring Report

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.  In May 2023, the CCTS launched our updated complaint-handling process to enhance our service delivery to customers and providers. These process changes streamline and simplify the complaints process, allow us to resolve complaints more quickly and increase transparency about how we make determinations about complaints. PSPs’ obligations under our updated process remain largely the same: PSPs must continue to implement all resolutions and CCTS findings (which replace the CCTS’ Recommendations and Decisions), PSPs must respond to CCTS after receiving a complaint (now with shorter deadlines), and PSPs must submit all relevant documents when a complaint remains unresolved. This report discusses compliance in 2022 with the Procedural Code requirements in effect at the time, before it was amended in May 2023 (see Appendix G).[6]

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:

  1. 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);
  2. not threatening legal action, additional fees or disconnection of service because the customer has filed a CCTS complaint;
  3. not asking customers to withdraw their CCTS complaint; and,
  4. 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[7] 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:

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

From January 1 to December 31, 2022, the CCTS accepted about 13,000 complaints and we flagged approximately 2,406 alleged compliance breaches of the Procedural Code.[8]

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[9], and Recommendations[10] and Decisions[11] 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 2022, the CCTS identified 20 confirmed breaches of this requirement, a 25% increase from last year.[12]

Figure 4.1: Confirmed breaches for non-implementation of resolutions, Recommendations and Decisions, year over year

Eighteen confirmed breaches related to the PSP failing to implement a resolution agreed to by the PSP and the customer. Most of these breaches were confirmed because the PSP failed to properly apply a credit on the customer’s account in a timely manner. After bringing these 18 instances of non-compliance to the attention of the PSP, in each case the PSP implemented the resolution to rectify its non-compliance.

We consider PSP 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, we have 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 our complaints resolution process.

In 2022, two complaints involving a Recommendation and a Decision required considerable compliance engagement.

  • Connexio Inc. initially refused to implement a Recommendation. After speaking with our Compliance team to better understand its obligations, the PSP eventually complied with the Recommendation and provided a refund to the customer, in accordance with our Recommendation.
  • ICA Microsystems Inc. (“ICA”) failed to implement a Decision issued in December 2022. Despite many attempts at engagement to explain to ICA that it was required to implement the Decision, it refused to do so. Consequently, the CCTS Members terminated its participation in April 2023 and referred the matter to the CRTC for further action. Since then, ICA is working with the CCTS to rectify its non-compliance and to rejoin the CCTS as a participating service provider.

Overall, the CCTS Compliance team was required to intervene in two out of five complaints after we issued our findings in a Recommendation or Decision because the PSP refused to provide the customer with the remedy required to rectify the issue. With changes to our complaint-handling process starting in May 2023, we will continue to closely monitor and intervene in cases where a PSP does not promptly implement our Investigation Findings that tell the provider how to fix the problem where the provider has not acted appropriately.

Case Summary

PSP fails to implement a mutually acceptable resolution

The customer complained to us about an activation fee charged for their bundled services (wireless, internet and home phone).  The customer stated that the PSP had promised to waive the activation fee when the customer upgraded service, but the customer was charged the activation fee. After the customer submitted a complaint to the CCTS, the PSP confirmed it would apply a credit of $88 on the account, resolving the complaint.  After waiting for several weeks, the customer advised us that the PSP had not applied the credit on the account.  Once we contacted the PSP, it explained the credit had not been properly applied on the account and promptly applied the credit.

 

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 2022, we issued a Decision against ICA after a customer complained that ICA failed to cancel the customer’s service. During our investigation, the customer informed us that ICA charged the customer $1,299 for filing a complaint with a third-party complaint-handling agency. While ICA’s Terms of Service say that it will bill the customer “up to $450” if a customer requests an investigation or disputes ICA’s Terms of Service, we concluded that any charge that penalizes customers for seeking recourse to the CCTS is not permitted. We previously brought this issue to ICA’s attention in a 2020 Decision about this very issue. These charges are punitive and deprive customers of their right to a free and fair review of their complaints. Consequently, we required ICA to cancel the $1,299 fee for the complaint and confirm that it has ceased and corrected any collections and credit reporting activities for this charge. As mentioned above, ICA refused to implement the Decision, the CCTS Members terminated its participation in April 2023, and we referred the matter to the CRTC for further action. In 2023, ICA is working with the CCTS to rectify its non-compliance and to rejoin the CCTS as a participating service provider.

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 2022, we flagged 10 allegations that the PSP asked a customer to withdraw their complaint and after reviewing, we did not have sufficient information to confirm any breaches. This is the lowest rate of both alleged and confirmed breaches since we began monitoring this behaviour.

Figure 4.2: Breaches for PSP asking customers to withdraw complaints, year over year

* In 2022, there were 0 confirmed breaches for PSPs asking customers to withdraw complaints.

 

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,[13] 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 should only inform us that a complaint is resolved when the PSP has confirmed with the customer that it has reached a mutually accepted resolution, or when it is providing the full resolution that the customer requested.

In 2022, we flagged 171 allegations of this behaviour and after reviewing the allegations in detail, we confirmed 96 breaches in which the PSP incorrectly reported that a complaint was mutually resolved with the customer, when it had not been.  This is a significant increase in confirmed breaches.

Figure 4.3: Breaches for PSP incorrectly notifying CCTS of mutually acceptable resolution

In reviewing the confirmed breaches, we noticed a few common problems in which the PSP:

  • failed to contact the customer;
  • unilaterally determined the issue was resolved based on its own investigation of the customer’s complaint, without confirming its proposed resolution with the customer;
  • disagreed with the customer’s position that the complaint is unresolved.

One PSP was responsible for almost 30% of the confirmed breaches. We intend to address this matter directly with the PSP and will monitor this situation in the coming year.

Case Summary

PSP inappropriately tells the CCTS a complaint is resolved despite the customer’s disagreement

A customer complained to us about a billing dispute with their wireless provider. When we informed the customer that the PSP reported to us that it had resolved the customer’s issues, the customer disputed this. The customer explained that the PSP did not answer the customer’s questions or allow the customer to explain why they felt their issues remained unresolved.  The customer stated the PSP said it would advise the CCTS that the complaint is resolved even though it was clear the customer did not feel it was resolved.  We therefore continued to process the complaint at the Investigation stage.

 

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 a written response to the CCTS and indicate that the complaint remains “unresolved”. The complaint moves to the next stage, at which we review the documents and either attempt to informally resolve the complaint or investigate in order to determine whether the PSP met its obligations to the customer.

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

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

We require information and documents from PSPs and if they do not provide these at the initial stage it increases complaint-handling time, often frustrating the customer and delaying a resolution. In 2022, we observed a continued increase in PSPs failing to respond to the complaint or provide us with relevant documents, with 1,305 alleged breaches in 3,058 complaints that were escalated to the next stage of our process, Investigations.

Figure 4.4: Breaches for improper PSP responses to unresolved complaints, year over year

 

Figure 4.5: Types of unresolved responses, year over year

The number of PSPs failing to respond to us at all (“no response”) has remained consistent from last year. However, the rate of PSPs not providing all required documents has doubled since 2020.

The CCTS’ updated complaint-handling process, effective May 2023, was streamlined to address this issue by offering an opportunity to have the CCTS informally mediate or explore possible solutions where a PSP provides information and documentation to respond to the complaint. With timely information and documents from the PSP, the CCTS can help conclude complaints earlier in the process, which increases the effectiveness and cost efficiency of the CCTS’ services.  If PSPs do not provide documentation, the CCTS may proceed directly to an investigation to determine whether the provider met its obligations. The CCTS will seek information from the PSP, and Investigation Findings are issued. While we expect that more PSPs will provide the CCTS with all relevant documents with their unresolved response in the future to get the full benefit of the CCTS’ conciliation processes, we will continue to monitor this in 2023.

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. Our process allows PSPs to object to the eligibility of a complaint, within 15 days after CCTS accepts the complaint. In filing an objection, a PSP must explain why the complaint falls into one of the enumerated exceptions. The PSP must explain the reason for its objection and provide supporting documentation so that the CCTS can assess the merits of the objection.

We identify an objection breach[14] under section 6.6(a) of the Procedural Code when the PSP submits:

  1. a late objection, submitted after the objection deadline;
  2. an incomplete objection, which is missing an explanation or supporting documentation; or
  3. 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.

In 2022, PSPs objected to a total of 955 complaints. In those 955 complaints, the CCTS found 220 alleged objections breaches.  The CCTS is pleased to see a decrease in objection breaches compared to previous years, although the number of such breaches remains unacceptably high.

Figure 4.6: Objections breaches, year over year

 

Figure 4.7: Types of objections breaches in 2022

Compliance with the Public Awareness Plan

2022 Compliance Monitoring Report

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.

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 role in ensuring that PSPs are doing their part to provide key information about recourse to the CCTS to their customers. Our Compliance team will continue to assess compliance with the PSP Public Awareness Plan, identify non-compliance and engage with PSPs to ensure that non-compliance issues are addressed in a timely manner. This year, we increased our engagement with non-compliant PSPs. As a result of our increased efforts, more PSPs became compliant with the PSP Public Awareness Plan to ensure that their customers have access to information about the CCTS.

Public Awareness Plan requirements for PSPs

PSPs have four types of requirements under the Public Awareness Plan:

See Appendix A which explains the steps that PSPs must take to promote public awareness about the CCTS.

Who and what we audited in 2022

In 2022, the CCTS audited 60 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 2020-2021 Annual Report. These PSPs accounted for 94% of all accepted complaints.
  • 3 PSPs identified as non-compliant in 2022. Throughout the year, the Compliance team engages with some PSPs for specific non-compliance issues requiring a more in-depth engagement.
  • 32 randomly selected PSPs (previously unaudited). This category ensures that all PSPs, regardless of their size and compliance status, can be reviewed to determine their compliance with the Public Awareness Plan requirements. With this year’s audit, the CCTS has audited the websites of 183 PSP brands since 2018.

The CCTS carries out two types of Public Awareness Plan audits, depending on the category to which each PSP belongs:

  1. Website audits: The CCTS reviews websites of all PSPs it audits to ensure that all required information about the CCTS is available on the provider’s website.
  2. PSP documentation audits: The CCTS reviews invoices, white pages and internal PSP documents about the PSP’s complaint-handling process for the 25 PSPs that generated the most CCTS complaints.

The CCTS shares its audit results with each PSP. Where non-compliance is identified, the CCTS explains what is expected to become compliant. PSPs are required to respond to the CCTS within 30 days of receiving non-compliant 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 and we name providers who refuse to comply in the Compliance Monitoring Report.

2022 Public Awareness Plan results

Website review – initial audit results

The CCTS audited 60 PSP websites in order to ensure their customers have access to the required website information, such as how the customer can contact the CCTS.

Out of the 60 PSPs audited, 11 PSPs were fully compliant with the public awareness website requirements: Chatr Wireless, Freedom Mobile, Koodo, Lucky Mobile, Netaccess Systems Inc., Primus, Public Mobile, Shaw, Shaw Direct, Ssi Canada and TekSavvy. Out of the 60 PSPs, there were 49 PSPs that had noncompliance issues or were fully non-compliant. 34 PSPs had some compliance issues because the presentation of CCTS information on their website was not fully compliant with the public awareness website requirements. 15 PSPs were fully non-compliant with the public awareness website requirements, meaning they did not have any information about the CCTS on their website. In total, 44 PSPs have become or have plans to become fully compliant and 5 PSPs remain fully non-compliant as they failed to respond and rectify the noncompliance. Those 5 fully non-compliant PSPs are: Vonage Canada Corporation, AiC Global Communications, Cybernet Communications, Max Isp and Quantum Xpress Computers.

Working with PSPs to become compliant with website requirements

We worked with 49 PSPs individually to address the issues of non-compliance with the website requirements.  Thirty-four PSPs have since addressed the compliance issues we raised, and 10 PSPs provided us with the details of how and when they will become compliant.

Five PSPs failed to respond to us and identify how they intend to comply with the Public Awareness Plan requirements: Vonage Canada Corporation, AiC Global Communications, Cybernet Communications, Max Isp and Quantum Xpress Computers. We will continue to engage these providers and review whether there are other issues of non-compliance.

Trends observed from website audits

In 2022, we found that nearly 30% of audited PSPs did not have any information about the CCTS on their websites. This is consistent with the results from 2020 (32%) and 2021 (28%).

The providers without information about the CCTS on their website in 2022 were small and new PSPs. We worked extensively with those providers and as a result, nearly 90% of audited PSPs now have added information about the CCTS on their website. Additionally, we plan on providing annual reminders to all PSPs about their obligations under the PSP Public Awareness Plan.

Although the majority of audited PSPs had information about the CCTS on their website prior to being audited, many of the issues we identified were about how and where the CCTS information was presented.

Trend #1.  Majority of PSP complaints page do not contain information about the CCTS, and are not clearly labelled or easy to find

In 2022, the CCTS found that more than half of PSPs’ complaint pages did not contain information about the CCTS and were not clearly labelled or were not easy to find. Issues identified include:

  • the PSP’s complaint page failing to include any information about the CCTS;
  • hyperlinks to the complaints page were not clearly labelled because the words used were misleading or confusing, (e.g. such as “How to complain to us”, which implies the page is for complaining to the provider only and not to an independent agency);
  • the CCTS information was buried in Terms of Service or the Privacy Policy;
  • PSP’s business website failing to include any information about the CCTS, even though small business customers are eligible to file complaints with the CCTS.

The CCTS’ objective is to ensure customers can easily find information about the CCTS when they need it most – when they have a complaint about their services. Customers should not have to scour their PSP’s website to find information about the PSP’s complaint process and their right of recourse to the CCTS.

Each year, we continue to find it difficult to navigate to the PSP’s complaint page and to find information about the CCTS. It is a recurring issue throughout the industry and among individual PSPs. Each year between 2019-2022, approximately half of audited PSPs were non-compliant with this requirement.

After identifying non-compliance, we work with PSPs every year to ensure their complaint page is clearly labelled, easy to find and contains the CCTS information. Despite PSPs addressing their non-compliance each year, new instances of non-compliance occur each year. Between 2019 and 2022, there were 16 PSPs that were non-compliant with this requirement in multiple years. Three PSPs were non-compliant with the requirement for 3 out of 4 years. To address this, we issued a memo in 2022 providing further clarification for PSPs to ensure they understand what the CCTS considers to be “clearly labelled and easy to find”. This guidance helps PSPs understand how we assess compliance for this requirement so that they can avoid non-compliance in the future.

Trend #2: Improvement on positioning and context of CCTS information

Last year, 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 they were permitted to complain to the CCTS; or
  • listing on their websites or invoices certain subjects or issues as being out of scope for the CCTS.

The CCTS was concerned that the way PSPs were positioning and including information on their websites could leave customers with the inaccurate impression that the CCTS was not available to them, frustrating the objective of the Public Awareness Plan.

In response to this issue, the CCTS provided guidance to all PSPs in the 2021 Compliance Monitoring Report and in a memo explaining the issue and providing examples of compliant and non-compliant activity. We also engaged with the PSPs we identified as having the problem, to explain and address the issue.

This year, we were pleased to see that only two PSPs were non-compliant with this guidance initially, and those PSPs have now come into compliance after this issue was brought to their attention.

Trend #3.  Majority of PSP websites with search function did not return the PSP complaint page

In 2022, 55% of PSP websites with a search function did not return results with a link to the complaints page with the CCTS information when searching for all keywords related to complaints and CCTS.  This is an improvement compared to 2021, when over 70% of PSPs with a search function were non-compliant. However, in each of the four years that the CCTS has assessed compliance with the search function, more than half of PSPs’ search functions did not return a link to the complaint page with the CCTS information.

While reviewing the results from PSPs which are audited each year between 2019 to 2022, we found repeated non-compliance as 14 of the 19 PSPs audited year over year were non-compliant with the search function at least twice.  Two of these PSPs were non-compliant with this requirement all four years.

Although each year these PSPs fixed the issue when the CCTS brought it to their attention after the annual audits, the errors recurred. PSPs explained to us that this is due to  website changes  implemented throughout the year.

Since our first annual compliance monitoring report, we’ve consistently identified the concern that many PSPs are non-compliant with the search function requirement. We should not have to remind PSPs each year to ensure their search function consistently returns the right results throughout the year. When PSPs update their website, they should take steps to verify that the required keywords continue to return the required CCTS information.

The rate of non-compliance is unacceptable and avoidable by PSPs through internal control processes for website updates. The search function is often the first tool that customers will use on a PSP website to find information on how to complain or the CCTS. Given the limited improvement and significant recurrence, the CCTS is considering naming PSPs that have recurring issues with the search function. We urge PSPs to implement internal processes and regular checks to ensure that website updates do not impact the search function.

Trend #4.  Business websites do not contain information about the CCTS

PSPs are required to ensure that information about the CCTS is readily available to customers when they need it most. Customers, including small businesses, should be aware of their right to access the CCTS’ complaint resolution service. Therefore, PSPs with business websites are required to have information about the CCTS on their business websites.  The CCTS found that 8 out of 26 PSPs with business websites were initially non-compliant with this requirement. Seven of those PSPs are now compliant or have provided us with their plan to become compliant. Vonage Canada Corporation, as discussed below, failed to rectify its non-compliance.

Since 2019, we have observed that some PSPs with dedicated business websites did not include information about the CCTS on their business complaint page.  We sent out guidance to all PSPs on this issue in 2022. We will continue to specifically audit PSP small business webpages to ensure information about the CCTS is included.

For full results, see Appendix C. Public Awareness Plan website audit results.

Documentation Review

Documentation review – initial audit results

In 2022, the CCTS audited the invoices, white pages and internal complaint-handling process of the 25 PSPs that generated the most complaints in 2020-21 in order to determine whether they complied with their obligations under the Public Awareness Plan.

Nearly 90% of the 25 PSPs audited were fully compliant with all Public Awareness Plan documentation requirements and these PSPs did not need to make any changes. This is a significant improvement from 2021, where 64% of PSPs were initially compliant.

Out of the 25 PSPs audited, 22 PSPs were fully compliant with public awareness documentation requirements and they were: Bell Canada, Bell Aliant, Bell MTS, Lucky Mobile and Virgin Plus, Cogeco, Comwave, Distributel, Eastlink, Primus, Rogers, Fido, Chatr Wireless, Shaw, Shaw Direct and Freedom Mobile, TekSavvy, TELUS, Koodo, Videotron and Fizz, and Xplore. 2 PSPs had some compliance issues with the customer notification and bill notice requirement and are now fully compliant. And 1 PSP - Vonage Canada Corp. - is fully non-compliant with the public awareness documentation requirements as it did not provide the CCTS with the required documentation to audit.

The non-compliance this year was due to:

  • 1 PSP did not provide the required CCTS message on their invoices to customers and 1 PSP failed to provide the required CCTS message via text message to its wireless customers who do not receive an invoice. Following engagement, both PSPs have implemented measures to ensure they provide the required CCTS message to their customers going forward.
  • Vonage Canada Corporation failed to provide us with the required documentation by the deadline despite extensive engagement efforts. We extended the deadline twice upon request for Vonage Canada Corporation to provide the required documentation and it did not. We followed up multiple times and it did not respond to our requests. Consequently, the CCTS has deemed Vonage Canada Corporation non-compliant for failure to comply with the request for information and the documentation requirements outlined in the Public Awareness Plan. Vonage Canada Corporation also failed to rectify the non-compliance issues on its website. We will continue to engage Vonage Canada and review whether there are other issues of non-compliance.

See Appendix D for full documentation audit results.

Providing financial information to CCTS and paying CCTS fees

2022 Compliance Monitoring Report

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.

Disclosure of financial information

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

In 2022, 66 out of 292 service providers did not comply with the requirement to provide us with financial information.

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

It is a particularly challenging annual endeavor to obtain the financial information from all PSPs, especially from smaller service providers.  Nevertheless, a significant majority of PSPs have provided this information to us each year. Between 2018 and 2022, PSPs’ rate of response is 75%.

Payment of CCTS fees

The CCTS bills PSPs on a quarterly basis, and PSPs are required to pay their fees promptly. We remind PSPs of their payment obligations when they are past due and identify how to come into compliance with their participation requirement. As of December 31, 2022, 30 service providers owed fees that qualify for collection activity, as listed in Appendix F. Since the CCTS is a not-for-profit which recovers its costs from all PSPs, non-payment of fees by some providers means that their non-payment needs to be unfairly shouldered by all other PSPs.

Conclusion

2022 Compliance Monitoring Report

For more than five years, the CCTS has been promoting and monitoring PSP compliance with the Procedural Code and PSP Public Awareness Plan.  The primary focus is to engage and educate PSPs to promote a better understanding of the requirements, and the reasons for them.  When there is non-compliance, the CCTS works individually with PSPs.  Most PSPs are ready to work with us when we raise non-compliance issues and there is generally a high level of PSP engagement. The CCTS appreciates the level of cooperation and engagement with PSPs and will continue seeking opportunities to regularly engage on compliance issues.

With the launch of our updated complaint-handling process, we look forward to continuing to ensure that PSPs understand their responsibilities and obligations.

Appendices

2022 Compliance Monitoring Report

Appendix documents

Footnotes

  1. The CCTS publishes an annual report which provides further insight and analyses about the complaints. In our 2021-22 Annual Report, the CCTS accepted a total of 12,790 complaints.
  2. The CCTS PSP Public Awareness Plan can be found at: “Developing Public Awareness of the CCTS” and also Appendix A.
  3. Review of the structure and mandate of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services Inc., Broadcasting and Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2016-102, 17 March 2016, paras 73 – 75 [“BTRP 2016-102”].
  4. The CCTS has only terminated 5 PSPs for major non-compliance:  VOIS Inc., AllCore Communications Inc., SkyChoice Communications Inc. (which is challenging the events that led to termination through legal proceedings), Maple Call Inc. and ICA Microsystems Inc.
  5. BTRP 2016-102, at para 45. Licensed TV service providers are required to participate when mandated to do so by the CRTC.
  6. All references to the Procedural Code are to the previous version in force at the time of these complaints (amended and restated in 2017).
  7. Each compliance breach references an individual section of the Procedural Code. There can also be multiple compliance breaches in an individual complaint.
  8. Each compliance breach references an individual section of the Procedural Code. There can be multiple compliance breaches in an individual complaint. Alleged breaches are when complaints raise questions about whether a provider has complied with the Procedural Code. Confirmed breaches are when the CCTS investigates and determines whether there has been a violation of the Procedural Code.
  9. Mutually acceptable resolutions are when the PSP and Customer agree to a specific outcome to resolve a complaint filed with the CCTS. 
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. PSPs confirmed as non-compliant for section 6.12 (failure to implement resolution): Rogers (4 instances), Fido (3), Bell Canada (2), TELUS (2), Cogeco (1),  Distributel (1), Public Mobile (1), Tamaani Internet (1), Sasktel (1), Freedom Mobile Inc (1), and Koodo (1). Connexio was confirmed as non-compliant for section 12 (failure to implement Recommendation). ICA Canada On-Line was confirmed as non-compliant for section 13 (failure to implement Decision).
  13. 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.
  14. Each objection can raise more than one compliance issue (e.g. breach for response submitted past the 15-day deadline and merit-based objection).

For best results, print using Google Chrome

Français