Annual Report

August 1, 2023 – July 31, 2024

Table of Contents

Chair’s message

Annual Report

August 1, 2023 – July 31, 2024

More than five years ago, we set out on a journey to become more responsive to the needs of customers and service providers in Canada by improving the CCTS’ processes and information technology. Today, we are witnessing the benefits of this transformation.

As we reflect on our 16th year, I am filled with pride and gratitude for the remarkable journey we have undertaken. Our team’s commitment to providing fair, independent, and accessible dispute resolution services has been the cornerstone of our success. It is these priorities that will lead the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (CCTS) into the next chapter with new strategic priorities.

From a governance perspective, the CCTS tackled a challenging list of deliverables this year. These were all successfully managed through the collaborative efforts of the Board and Management. Our key achievement was the strategic oversight of the new process and technology changes. These changes were designed to improve the efficiency and transparency of our complaint-handling work. We also increased our efforts to grow public awareness of the CCTS and are continually working to enhance value for stakeholders.

Over eight years, I have been fortunate to lead the Board in spearheading several milestone accomplishments, including the following:

  • overseeing the most significant modernization project in the organization’s history
  • guiding the organization’s resilience and strategic adaptation during the COVID-19 pandemic
  • ensuring the successful implementation of changes to the CCTS’ mandate and operations following the Canadian Radio-television & Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) mandate review in 2016
  • ensuring effective and cohesive operation of a Board composed of representatives of diverse stakeholder groups
  • providing insights from our complaints data to inform key stakeholders, enhancing the broader telecom and TV landscape.

To the members of the CCTS’ Board, your visionary leadership and unwavering support have been instrumental in steering the CCTS towards success as the consumer agency envisioned by the Government of Canada. It has been a remarkable eight years I’ve shared with this organization. Together, we have established a robust foundation and a compelling strategic direction for the CCTS. As I retire from the Board, I am confident that this collaborative work will continue to guide the CCTS towards continued success under the new Chair of the Board, Patricia A. Kiley, CPA, C.A., ICD.D.

In addition to the new Chair, this year included other changes to the Board. In October 2023, Dean Shaikh, LL.B, LL.M, retired from the Board. He was succeeded by newly elected director, Leonard Eichel, BASc, MFA, representing the cable companies. In October 2024, Geoff White, JD, MBA, BCL, ICD.D, retired from the Board, and Todd Hofley, MA, MFA, assumed his position as the newly elected director representing the Other Participants group. In October 2024, Michel Tremblay, MBA, C.Dir., joined the Board as an Independent Director. We extend our sincere thanks to Dean and Geoff for their years of dedicated service, and to Leonard, Todd, and Michel for agreeing to serve.

As the CCTS moves forward with a new strategic plan that charts a course for success for the organization, we continue to deliver exceptional complaint-resolution services for customers and service providers. The five-year plan offers a renewed sense of purpose and a clear vision for enhancing our service excellence. Under this plan we will continue to deliver timely and effective dispute resolution. We will strengthen our organizational capacity and resilience. And we will foster collaborative relationships with our stakeholders:

  • service providers
  • the industry regulator
  • the government
  • consumers and consumer groups, including accessibility groups

More than five years ago, we set out on a journey to become more responsive to the needs of customers and service providers in Canada by improving the CCTS’ processes and information technology. Today, we are witnessing the benefits of this transformation. This success was largely due to the collaborative efforts of the Board, Management and staff to ensure the CCTS provides the best possible complaint-handling service. I wish the CCTS great success as it continues along this road.

Sincerely,

Catherine Aczel Boivie
Chair of the Board, CCTS

Signature

Commissioner’s message

Annual Report

August 1, 2023 – July 31, 2024

This past year was a challenging one. In the very early stages of implementing our new complaint-handling process and updated technology, the submission of in-mandate complaints increased by 38% and reached the highest level in the CCTS’ history.

This triggered an unexpected surge in workloads and was a real test of our organizational resilience. It affected all our teams — contact centre agents, complaint-handlers, IT, and our Human Resources and Communications departments. I am pleased and proud to share that we have come through the year successfully, with good progress to report on all fronts. In addition to our day-to-day operational successes in providing first-class complaint-resolution services to Canadians, we also dedicated time to work with our Board to update our strategic plan for the next five years.

The process and technology updates that we launched in May 2023 are showing positive results. We’ve reduced the wait time to accept customer complaints into our process by almost 90% — we are now able to assess and accept most complaints within 1-2 days. Most complaints are also concluded faster at the earliest stage of our process: the vast majority (87%) of resolved complaints are settled within 20 days. That said, we had some areas for improvement this year: the number of complaints pending at our Conciliation and Investigation stages was too high. This meant that some customers had to wait before our staff could begin to work on their complaints. Although this represents only a small portion of accepted complaints, we have taken steps to reduce the number of pending complaints at these stages. We refined some of our processes to increase efficiency and increased our capacity to handle complaints. Addressing the number of complaints at Conciliation and Investigation remains a key focus for the Board and Management, and we expect to be able to reduce wait times for these later stages of our process to normal levels in the first half of 2024-25.

We are continuing to increase our efforts to build public awareness about the service we offer to Canadians. We continue to foster collaborative and value-driven relationships with our stakeholders, enhancing our engagement with consumers and consumer groups, industry, regulatory bodies and government. All of these relationships help ensure that Canadians are informed of their right of recourse and their option to engage with the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (CCTS) for unresolved complaints.

Complaints don’t resolve themselves. It takes a team of dedicated people to provide the reliable, high-quality, and efficient service that has earned us the trust and respect of the stakeholders we serve. To our staff, your engagement and resilience have enabled us to navigate challenges and seize opportunities for growth and improvement. I am proud to be part of this diverse team of unique professionals.

Finally, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for the work of our esteemed Chair, Catherine Aczel Boivie, as she retires from the CCTS’ Board of Directors after eight years of guiding the CCTS with her strategic vision and leadership. Catherine’s dedication to the CCTS has been instrumental in shaping our strong foundation now and into the future. We all deeply appreciate her years of service.

Sincerely,

Howard Maker
Commissioner & CEO, CCTS

Signature

Year at a glance

Annual Report

August 1, 2023 – July 31, 2024

This section provides an overview of significant events and data points for the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (CCTS) between August 1, 2023 and July 31, 2024.

By the numbers

Successful resolutions

88% of concluded complaints were successfully resolved.

Complaints up

20,147 in-mandate complaints were accepted, up 38% from last year.

Top issues

Wireless issues remain the most raised, followed by internet service concerns. Across all service types, billing and service delivery issues were the top issues raised.

Industry-wide participation

436 brands operated by 311 service providers participated in the CCTS.

 

Distribution of complaints

88% of complaints were filed about 10 service providers.
257 brands had zero complaints.
95 brands had 3 complaints or fewer.

Conciliation or investigation required

19% of concluded complaints required conciliation or investigation.

Total issues

38,874 issues were raised in 19,176 concluded complaints.

CCTS Publications

Key events

  • We launched a new five-year strategic plan focusing on service excellence, organizational effectiveness, and stakeholder value. The plan will drive continuous improvement in the telecommunications and TV landscape by emphasizing three things:
    • high-quality complaint resolution
    • robust organizational capacity
    • collaborative stakeholder relationships
  • Significant changes to our complaint-handling process and new technology improved the customer experience. For example, it took less time to assess and accept customer complaints and we resolved more complaints at the earliest stage of our process. We continued to refine our complaint-handling process and technology and sought opportunities to better serve our stakeholders.
  • We continued efforts to raise public awareness about the CCTS. We increased our focus on media relations, radio, digital and social advertising. This led to greater media coverage, higher website traffic, and a broader reach across Canada. We plan to continue to increase awareness of the CCTS’s services.
  • We continued to consult with diverse consumer and accessibility groups across Canada, including 11 accessibility and consumer advocacy organizations. These groups offer a wide range of views that help us to improve the ways we serve Canadians and to increase public awareness.
  • We welcomed 11 new Participating Service Providers (PSPs).
  • We continued to engage with non-compliant PSPs. Our engagement efforts seek to rectify non-compliance with our complaint-handling process and service provider obligations to promote awareness about the CCTS.
  • We terminated the participation of InnSys Inc. for failing to comply with a number of mandatory CCTS requirements and referred it to the CRTC for further action.
  • As a result of collaborative efforts with the CRTC, we reinstated ICA Microsystems Inc. as a PSP once the business corrected its non-compliance with the CCTS.
  • We appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications studying Bill C-288. The bill would require internet service providers to give consumers more transparent and accurate information about broadband services. We offered insights into our mandate and how we help customers with complaints about internet speed, quality of service and disclosure issues. We also spoke about the number and types of complaints we receive about these issues.

Who we are and what we do

Annual Report

August 1, 2023 – July 31, 2024

Our mandate

The Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (CCTS) was established in 2007. It is Canada’s national ombuds for the telecommunications and television industries. We are an independent, not-for-profit organization. We help customers and service providers resolve complaints about telephone, wireless, internet and TV services fairly and at no cost.

Today, the CCTS works with more than 400 service providers. We have resolved more than 190,000 customer complaints. We work with individuals and small businesses to resolve disputes when direct efforts with service providers have not succeeded. Almost 9 out of 10 complaints the CCTS accepts are successfully resolved to the satisfaction of the customer and the service provider. Most of those are resolved within 20 days.

We can help with most problems that occur between a customer and a service provider. These include disputes about:

  • contracts
  • billing
  • service delivery
  • credit management

Services in our mandate: 1. Internet 2. Wireless, including voice, data and text 3. TV, for residential customers only 4. Phone, for home and small business, including long distance, white page directories, directory assistance and operator services

“I want to extend my heartfelt thanks for your assistance in resolving my issue. Your intervention was invaluable in addressing my concerns and ensuring that my voice was heard. As an independent organization, your impartiality and dedication to fairness provided the support I needed to reach a satisfactory resolution.”

— Customer who used the CCTS’ services

Our complaint-handling process

Our complaint-handling process is designed to help customers and service providers resolve their issues quickly. You can file a complaint with us if you have tried to resolve the problem directly with your service provider but have not succeeded. We have the authority to fix all kinds of problems. For example, we can compel providers to do the following:

  • correct billing errors
  • reinstate incorrectly suspended or cancelled services
  • stop collection activities while we handle the complaint
  • correct credit bureau reporting
  • issue credits for undelivered services

Step 1: Complaint Submission & Assessment; Step 2: Initial Referral; Step 3: Conciliation and Investigation; Step 4: Outcome

Our vision, mission and values

One of our priorities in 2023 and 2024 was to develop a new strategic plan that aims to do four things:

  • enhance our complaint-handling process
  • improve service delivery
  • build stronger relationships with stakeholders
  • strengthen Canada’s telecommunications and television landscape

We launched the new strategic plan in September 2024. It sets the direction for how we will approach our work over the next five years. The plan builds on the progress we made over the past several years in these areas:

  • service excellence
  • organizational effectiveness
  • increasing stakeholder value

These three priorities reflect our current operating environment and strategic goals. We have also re-affirmed our commitment to providing unbiased, fair and responsive complaint-resolution services that are accessible to all consumers.

Our organizational vision, mission, and values guide our work. During this strategic planning process, we re-examined our vision, mission and values and updated them to reflect the following:

  • how we conduct our work every day
  • our aspirations for the future
  • the values we strive to uphold in our work, throughout the organization and in our relationships with stakeholders

Vision

Exceptional complaint resolution that strengthens Canada’s telecommunications and television landscape.

Mission

To provide impartial, fair, and effective complaint resolution services, data, and insights to telecommunications and television consumers and service providers.

Our values

Excellence

We are committed to the continuous improvement of our organization through regular self-reflection and professional growth.

Integrity

We hold each other to the highest standards of professionalism and honesty in all aspects of our work.

Resolution-Driven

We are dedicated to resolving complaints through a consistent, thorough, and timely service.

Collaboration

We are committed to listening to and working with consumers, service providers, and our colleagues to achieve shared goals.

Respect

We strive to create an environment in which all perspectives and viewpoints are heard and valued.

We invite you to read more about our new Strategic Plan.

2023-24 complaints

Annual Report

August 1, 2023 – July 31, 2024

This section provides a broad overview of the complaint data for this fiscal year. Additional detailed analysis follows throughout the report. For definitions of the terms used in this section, see the Glossary of Terms.

About our data

This report is about the complaints we accepted and concluded within our fiscal year, August 1, 2023 and July 31, 2024. The complaints we accept and conclude after July 31, 2024 will be reported in next year’s Annual Report.

NOTE: A single complaint may raise more than one issue. To ensure the accuracy of the statistics we report, we audit the data throughout the year. We round percentages when we present them in tables. That’s why the sum of the individual numbers does not always add up to 100%.

Complaint statistics

Table 5.1: Summary of operational statistics

Note: Due to the CCTS’ complaint-handling process changes implemented in May 2023, there is no comparative year-over-year data for some stages in this year’s Annual Report.

Billing issues – 17,306; Service delivery -10,860; Contract dispute – 9,285; Credit management – 1,373; Other - 50

Table 5.2: Leading complaint issues broken down by service type

* The number of issues is higher than the number of complaints accepted because a single complaint may raise more than one issue.

† Other services include long distance, operator-service, directory assistance, and white pages directories issues.

** Other issue types include accessibility-related issues that fall within our mandate.

 

Like last year, wireless services generated the largest number of issues across all issue types.

Billing issues increased the most (up by 52%) across all issue types. Billing is the top issue for all service types, except for local phone. For local phone customers, service delivery concerns were most common.

More details about complaints and issues can be found in the Topics and Trends section of our Annual Report.

Topics and trends

Annual Report

August 1, 2023 – July 31, 2024

In 2023-24, we accepted 20,147 of the complaints from customers across Canada. This represents a 38% increase from last year and is the highest number of complaints accepted in our organization’s history.

20,147 accepted complaints in 2023-2024; 38% increase

Overview

Our teams worked hard to maintain efficient operations as we handled the increased volume of complaints this year. We maintained a resolution rate of 88%. 87% of complaints we resolved were settled within 20 days.

This year, we concluded 19,176 complaints containing 38,874* issues.

* A single complaint can contain more than one issue. For example, a customer may submit one complaint about both the billing of their internet service and roaming charges related to their wireless service. These would be reported as two issues.

87% of complaints resolved within 20 days

A complaint can contain multiple issues. 19,176 concluded complaints. 38,874 issues: number of complaints and issues that were accepted in 2023-2024.

Issues raised in complaints

  • Wireless issues remain the most-raised issue, accounting for 52% of all issues raised. Wireless issues increased by 27% this year.
  • Internet issues remain the second-most raised issue, accounting for 29% of all issues raised. Internet issues increased by 50%.
Table 6.1: Number of issues by service type, Year-over-Year (YoY) change

Note: Red text within tables shows an increase in issues compared to last year. Green text shows a decrease.

Issues by service type: TV 11%; Local phone 8%; Internet 29%; Wireless 52%; Other 0%

Figure 6.1: Five-year view of issues by service type

Spotlight on wireless services

  • Wireless remains the most complained-about service and represents 52% of all issues raised.
  • Wireless issues increased by 27% this year. There were more wireless issues raised this year than in any other year in the last five years.
  • Billing remains the top category of issues for wireless services with an increase of 39% from last year. Service delivery issues increased by 27%, and contract dispute issues increased by 12%. Table 6.2 shows the key issues that increased year-over-year and contributed to the overall rise in wireless complaints.
  • Primary contributors to the increase in wireless issues include:
    • incorrect charge for monthly price plan—31% increase
    • credit or refund not received—108% increase
    • regular price increase of monthly price plan—360% increase
Figure 6.2: Five-year view of wireless issues
Table 6.2: Top 10 wireless issues
Issue Number Proportion YoY (%)
Disclosure issues 2,952 15% +4%
Incorrect charge for monthly price plan 2,836 14% +31%
Credit or refund not received 2,120 11% +108%
Quality of service 1,458 7% +27%
Changes to the contract 1,043 5% +33%
Regular price increase of monthly price plans 772 4% +360%
Breach of contract 756 4% 0%
Third party credit reporting 721 4% +11%
Data charges 697 3% +70%
Repair issues and appointments 601 3% N/A
Figure 6.3: Five-year view of internet issues

 

Spotlight on internet service

  • Internet issues account for 29% of all issues raised by customers, up from 26% last year.
  • Internet issues increased by 50% this year.
  • Billing is now the top issue category for internet customers, with an increase of 84% from last year. Primary contributors to this spike in internet billing complaints include the following:
    • incorrect charge for monthly price plan—77% increase
    • regular price increase to monthly price plans—260% increase
    • credit or refund not received—107% increase
  • Service delivery issues raised by internet customers also increased by 27% year-over-year. Issues concerning quality of service remain the top issues within this category, continuing a five-year trend.
Table 6.3: Top 10 internet issues
Issue Number Proportion YoY (%)
Incorrect charge for monthly price plan 1,635 15% +77%
Disclosure issues 1,248 11% +63%
Quality of service 1,236 11% +4%
Credit or refund not received 992 9% +107%
Repair issues and appointments 707 6% N/A
Regular price increase of monthly price plans 622 6% +260%
Complete loss of service 608 5% +10%
Due dates not kept or delay for installation or cancellation of service 503 5% -19%
Termination fee 470 4% +73%
Unable to cancel 392 4% +55%

 

Spotlight on TV services

  • After complaints about TV services decreased for four years in a row, we saw an increase in issues about TV services. TV issues account for 11% of all issues, up 1% from last year.
  • The number of TV issues increased by 46% this year.
  • Notably, TV billing issues increased by 61% from last year. Customers raised more issues about incorrect charges for monthly price plans, credits or refunds not being received, and increases to monthly price plans.
  • Service delivery issues with TV services increased by 36%. Customers raised more issues about not being able to cancel services, quality of service and complete loss of services.
  • Issues with TV contracts increased by 43% this year. Disclosure issues account for 13% of all TV issues raised. Disclosure issues increased by 55% from last year.
Figure 6.4: Five-year view of TV issues
Table 6.4: Top 10 TV issues
Issue Number Proportion YoY (%)
Incorrect monthly price plan 677 16% +62%
Disclosure issues 537 13% +55%
Quality of service 427 10% +9%
Credit or refund not received 349 8% +108%
Repair issues and appointments 275 6% N/A
Regular price increase of monthly price plans 228 5% +165%
Complete loss of service 222 5% +28%
Changes to the contract
 188 4% +25%
Due dates not kept or delay for installation or cancellation of service 160 4% -24%
Unable to cancel 155 4% +67%

 

Figure 6.5: Five-year view of local phone issues

Spotlight on phone services

  • Local phone services account for 8% of all issues, down from 9% last year.
  • Issues raised about local phone services increased by 24% this year.
  • Billing issues increased by 51% for phone services. Customers raised more of the following issues:
    • incorrect charges for monthly price plans — 48% increase
    • credit or refund not received — 67% increase
    • regular price increase of monthly price plan —147% increase
Table 6.5: Top 10 local phone issues
Issue Number Proportion YoY (%)
Incorrect charge for monthly price plan 464 15% +48%
Disclosure issues 336 11% +35%
Complete loss of service 284 9% +23%
Quality of service 247 8% -18%
Credit or refund not received 190 6% +67%
Repair issues and appointments 182 6% N/A
Regular price increase of monthly price plans 180 6% +147%
Unable to port 144 5% -1%
Due dates not kept or delay for installation or cancellation of service 118 4% -34%
Termination fee 113 4% -1%
Unable to cancel 113 4% +64%

 

Breakdown of issues across all service types

For the first time in the last five years, customers raised most often the issue of incorrect charge for monthly price plan. Disclosure issues are now the second-most raised issue across all service types. Notable year-over-year increases across all service types include the following:

  • regular price increase of monthly price plans — 261% increase
  • credit or refund not received — 106% increase
  • incorrect charge for monthly price plan — 47% increase
Table 6.6: Top 10 issues across all service types

Billing issues

Billing issues include several concerns such as:

  • incorrect charge for the monthly price plan
  • unexpected price increases to the monthly price plan
  • promised credits or refunds that are not received 
  • disputes about other charges such as roaming, data usage, cancellation or equipment charges.

Service providers are expected to abide by the applicable codes set out by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) as well as their own terms of service and agreements with customers.

Billing is now the top issue category. 52% increase from last year.

Figure 6.6: Five-year view of billing issues

 

Following a decline in billing issues since 2019, we saw a significant 52% increase in billing issues in 2023-24, nearly returning to 2019 levels. This resurgence of billing issues comes at a time when people in Canada face increasing prices for goods and services. This may help explain why people are more concerned about billing discrepancies.

This year, billing issues account for 45% of all issues raised, up from 39% last year. This increase was consistent across all service types:

  • Wireless billing issues — 39% increase
  • Internet billing issues — 84% increase
  • TV billing issues — 61% increase
  • Local phone billing issues — 51% increase
Figure 6.7: Billing issues by service type
Table 6.7: Billing issues – Top 10 service providers

* The average billing resolution rate was 89%.

 

Table 6.8: Top 10 billing issues
Issue Number
Incorrect charge for monthly price plan 5,675
Credit or refund not received 3,670
Regular price increase of monthly price plans 1,817
Equipment charges 829
Deactivation charges or billed after cancellation 758
Data charges 697
Misapplied payments 593
Roaming charges 582
Invoices not received 569
Installation, activation, or reactivation charges 513

Incorrect charge for monthly price plan

In 2023-24, 33% of all billing issues were about customers being charged incorrectly for their monthly service plan. This issue occurs when the customer is charged a different amount than they believe they agreed to.

Continuing a four-year increase, complaints about incorrect charge for monthly price plan increased by 47% from last year.

Incorrect charge for monthly price plan is the leading billing issue. 5,637 times raised; 15% of all issues across all services; An increase of 47% from last year.

Figure 6.8: Incorrect charge for monthly price plan by service type
Table 6.9: Incorrect charge for monthly price plan – Top 3 service providers
Service provider Number of times issue was raised Proportion of issue
Rogers 1,690 30%
TELUS 1,010 18%
Bell 987 17%

Key message

When we investigate complaints about the incorrect charge of a monthly price plan, we review the rate the customer agreed to and see if it matches the billed rate. If the two rates are different, we ask the service provider to explain why that is. To ensure that the provider is acting reasonably, we also try to understand why the provider believes it has the right to bill a different rate.

Billing issues often arise when information is not clear. As a result, the customer may be confused. Their expectations may not be met, or they may suspect that the provider is charging them incorrectly. We encourage customers to read their agreements carefully. Agreements typically set out what the customer will be billed. If the customer has a fixed-term agreement, the provider may be required to notify the customer before the end of the commitment period about the monthly price going forward.

Regular price increase of monthly price plan

Customers often complain that their service provider increased the price of their monthly service plan. This issue increased by 261% this year. It occurred across all service types:

  • Wireless regular price increase of monthly price plan — 360% increase
  • Internet regular price increase of monthly price plan — 260% increase
  • TV regular price increase of monthly price plan —165% increase
  • Local phone regular price increase of monthly price plan — 147% increase

Issues about regular price increases of monthly price plans make up 5% of all issues raised, and 11% of all billing issues.

 

Figure 6.9: Issues with the regular price increase of monthly price plans by service type
Table 6.10: Issues with regular price increase of monthly price plans – Top 3 service providers
Service provider Number of times issue was raised Proportion of issue
Rogers 487 27%
Bell 390 21%
TELUS 224 12%

Key message: increases to monthly price plans

Service providers may adjust prices for future months if the CRTC consumer protection codes and their contracts permit them to do so. As the cost of living rises and household budgets tighten, customers may be more sensitive to these adjustments. Our role is to ensure that service providers follow the terms set out in their contracts and that they abide by applicable CRTC codes when changing any prices.

When reviewing these cases, we first look at whether a provider is permitted to change the price. For example, the CRTC Wireless and Internet Codes do not permit providers to change the monthly price during a fixed-term agreement. Providers may change the price for month-to-month (no commitment) services with at least 30 days’ notice and a clear explanation of the change. If the provider is permitted to change the monthly price for services, we then verify that the provider met the requirements of their contract to increase the price. For example, did the provider notify the customer and did they give the customer the required information about the change? Understanding their contracts and the CRTC codes help customers know their rights and what to look for when addressing price increases on their bills.

Credit or refund not received

For the second year in a row, concerns about not receiving a promised credit or refund were the second biggest billing issue.

This issue accounts for 21% of all billing issues, up from 16% last year. The number of times the customers raised issues about a credit or refund not being received increased 106% year over year.

For the second year in a row, credit or refund not received is the second highest billing-related issue. 106% year-over-year increase; 21% of all billing issues; 3,670 times raised.

Figure 6.10: Issues with credits or refunds not received by service type 
Table 6.11: Issues with credits or refunds not received – Top 3 service providers 
Service provider Number of times issue was raised Proportion of issue
Rogers 984 27%
Bell 626 17%
TELUS 493 13%

Key message: credit or refund not received

When we investigate complaints about a credit or refund not being received, we try to find out if the provider owes the customer a credit or refund. We ask customers to tell us about when they believe they were offered a credit or refund. If the provider owes a credit or refund, we ask the provider to show that it has been provided. If it hasn’t, the provider must explain why they withheld it. We ask providers to thoroughly review their own records of customer interactions about unfulfilled credits or refunds to help resolve the issue more efficiently.

To reduce complaints about this issue, we strongly encourage providers to consider whether their billing systems and customer service procedures adequately ensure swift actioning of promised customer credits or refunds.

Contract dispute issues

Contract dispute issues include problems related to misunderstandings or conflicts over the terms set out in customer agreements. Common concerns include the following:

  • Disclosure of contract terms is unclear
  • The service provider breached the terms of the contract
  • The service provider changed the contract
  • The customer encountered problems when trying to renew their contract

These disputes often arise when the service provider and the customer disagree about one or both of these things:

  • the terms of the contract
  • whether the provider performed its contractual obligations to the customer

The number of contract dispute issues increased by 21% this year.

Disclosure issues

Disclosure issues are the most-raised contract dispute problem. Customers often raise concerns about a lack of information or information that is unclear. This is reflected in the data, as disclosure issues continue to be a top issue. Customers raised 5,116 disclosure issues across all service types this year— a 21% increase from last year. This is the first time this issue has increased in five years.

Disclosure issues account for 13% of all issues raised across all service types.

Figure 6.11: Five-year view of disclosure issues

 

Disclosure issues by type of service

Lack of clear disclosure remains the top issue raised by wireless customers and is now the second most common issue raised by customers of internet, TV, and phone services. Customers raised 21% more disclosure issues overall. Internet customers raised 63% more disclosure issues. TV customers raised 55% more disclosure issues and local phone customers raised 35% more disclosure issues.

Figure 6.12: Disclosure issues by type of service

 

Table 6.12: Disclosure issues – Top 10 service providers

* The average disclosure resolution rate was 90%.

 

Table 6.13: Types of disclosure issues broken down by service type

No consent or contract conflicts with agreement

Of all the concerns customers raise about disclosure, 88% are the result of a disagreement between the customer and the services provider over one or both of these issues:

  • whether the customer consented to the agreement
  • a mismatch between what the customer believes they agreed to purchase versus what the contract sent to them after the transaction occurred shows

Issues raised about no consent or contract conflicts with agreement increased by 35% across all service types.

Figure 6.13: Issues where there is no consent or contract conflicts with agreement by type of service
Table 6.14: Disclosure – No consent or contract conflicts with agreement: Top 3 service providers
Service provider Number of times issue was raised Proportion of issue
Rogers 1,469 33%
Bell 743 17%
TELUS 740 17%

Device financing plans

In March 2021, the CRTC issued a decision determining that device financing plans fall under the scope of the Wireless Code. The CRTC found that requiring customers to pay the balance of a device financing plan constitutes an early cancellation fee. To inform future reviews of the Wireless Code, the CRTC asked us to track complaints related to device financing plans in our Annual and Mid-Year Reports.

Issues with device financing plans increased by 38% this year. This issue was raised 328 times with a large portion of customer concerns about disclosure.

Table 6.15: Disclosure – Rules related to agreement are unclear: Top 3 service providers
Service provider Number of issues Proportion of issue
Rogers 122 25%
Bell 68 14%
Fido 57 12%
Table 6.16: Issues with device financing plans for wireless services

*The resolution rate for all issues was 87.8%

Key message: device financing plans

Service providers offer device financing plans to help lower the cost of mobile devices for customers. These financing plans typically spread the device cost into monthly installments over a fixed term or defer some of the upfront cost of the device until the end of the term. Each year, we track and monitor issues about device financing plans, as requested by the CRTC.

While device financing plans are permitted under the Wireless Code, these agreements have become increasingly complex. Some include a monthly device subsidy, and some offer device discounts or device bonuses. The financing may also be provided through a third party, not the wireless service provider itself.

Some providers offer device return options. For example, a customer may have to return the device at the end of their contract or pay an amount to keep it. Customers who don’t know that they must return their device or follow certain conditions to return their device may be surprised by device charges at the end of the contract, particularly if they cancel their contract early.

Given the complexity of device financing plans, we recommend that service providers simplify the way they explain these options to customers. Providers should also ensure their representatives are trained to accurately explain end-of-contract requirements and how early cancellation fees are calculated. Service providers should be very clear about any device return conditions during the sales transaction. These should be clearly and prominently set out in customer contracts. The provider should also inform their customers if a third party is involved in the device financing.

Before entering into an agreement with a device financing plan, we encourage customers to ask service providers what happens to their device financing if they change their wireless services or cancel early. Customers can avoid surprises by asking for an example of how the provider calculates early cancellation fees. Customers should also carefully review their device financing plan agreements to understand three key things:

  1. how the plans works
  2. who they are contracting with for financing (e.g. their wireless provider or a third-party financing company)
  3. if they are agreeing to return their device to the provider at the end of the commitment period.

Changes to the contract

Changes to the contract issues arise when:

  • a service provider notifies the customer of a change to the terms of their agreement; and,
  • the customer does not believe the provider is allowed to make the change.

        or

  • The provider fails to notify the customer about a change to the terms of their agreement when required.

Issues about changes to the contract account for 4% of all issues raised. This year, the issue increased by 28%.

Figure 6.14: Changes to the contract issues by type of service
Table 6.17: Changes to the contract issues – Top 3 service providers
Service provider Number of times issue was raised Proportion of issue
Rogers 499 29%
Bell 228 13%
Public Mobile 228 13%

Key message: changes to the Contract

The total amount a customer pays for their telecommunications and television services often has several parts: the regular monthly price plan, fees for optional add-on services, and equipment rental fees or device subsidy fees. In addition, providers may offer promotional discounts or a loyalty program that allows customers to apply rewards as credits towards their service costs.

The CRTC consumer protection codes have rules about what contract terms providers may or may not change. For example, the Wireless Code requires providers to obtain a customer’s express consent before changing any “key contract term,” such as the minimum monthly charge during the commitment period. Providers may not change the minimum monthly charge during a fixed-term agreement without customer consent. For prepaid or month-to-month arrangements, providers may change key terms, such as the monthly price, but they must give at least 30 days’ notice and a clear explanation of the change.

Providers are typically allowed to change other (non-key) contract terms without the customer’s consent. They must, however, give at least 30 days’ notice and clearly explain the changes before any increase takes place. Non-key contract terms may include changes to monthly discounts and loyalty programs. Customers should be aware that providers may have the right to change parts of the contract that may affect the overall cost. During sales transactions, customers should make sure they clearly understand which parts of the price are guaranteed for a set period and which may change without notice.

When there is a dispute about changes to a contract, we ask the provider to show the terms that the customer agreed to and explain the changes it made. If the provider changed the contract, it must also show that it had the right to do so. We verify whether the relevant CRTC codes allow the provider to change those terms. We also check if the provider followed the necessary steps to make the change. For example, did it notify the customer in advance as required? Did it get the customer’s express consent if the terms of the agreement or a CRTC code require it?

Service delivery issues

Service delivery issues are problems with the quality, reliability and management of a customer’s service. These issues, which account for 28% of all issues raised in 2023-24, include the following:

  • slower than expected broadband or wireless speeds (e.g., intermittent service)
  • complete loss of service
  • delays to install or cancel services
  • difficulties cancelling or porting services

Service delivery issues increased by 26% across all service types.

Figure 6.15: Five-year view of service delivery issues

 

Figure 6.16: Service delivery issues by service type

 

Table 6.18: Top 10 service delivery issues
Issue Number
Quality of service 3,382
Repair issues and appointments 1,775
Complete loss of service 1,634
Due dates not kept or delayed for installation or cancellation of service 1,085
Unable to cancel 1,036
Unable to port 640
Nonpayment or collections 455
Installation error 446
Out of service due to policy 208
Seasonal suspension 92

“I am very grateful to CCTS, as my service provider owed me over $600 in overcharges. Thank you for your intervention. I was thoroughly pleased with the application process, the transparent emails, and the service provided by CCTS.”

— Customer who used the CCTS’ services

Quality of service

Customers raise quality of service issues when their telecommunications or television services do not work to the level that they expect. These are some common examples:

  • slower than expected internet or wireless data speeds
  • service works on and off with regular or irregular interruptions
  • poor sound quality such as static or clips on their wireless or landline service
  • disconnected (dropped) calls

Quality of service issues account for 31% of all service delivery issues, an increase of 12% from last year. This year, 43% of quality of service issues were raised by wireless customers, and 36% by internet customers.

Figure 6.17: Quality of service issues by service type
Table 6.19: Quality of service issues – Top 3 service providers
Service provider Number of times issue was raised Proportion of issue
Rogers 748 22%
Bell 667 20%
TELUS 512 15%

Key message: quality of service issues

Quality of service issues, such as slower-than-expected internet speeds or intermittent services, frustrate customers. Customers rely on their connectivity services to work, learn, stay connected with family and friends and to access content to keep them informed and entertained.

When we look at complaints about quality of service issues, we determine the service quality the customer ought to have, for example, from the service provider’s service level commitment or the customer’s contract. We also look at the evidence submitted by both the customer and the service provider that shows the service level the customer actually received. If the customer does not experience the service quality they expect, we:

  • examine whether the service provider followed its usual troubleshooting process to correct the service quality or if it issued credits to the customer
  • consider other steps the provider has taken to fix the issue and resolve the complaint
  • consider what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. For example, there may be a better plan for the customer given the actual experience that the provider is able to deliver.

While the CCTS cannot fix broader infrastructure or network issues, we can hold service providers accountable for delivering what has been agreed to. If the customer does not receive the service levels they ought to experience, we expect the provider to either correct the problem or compensate the customer in some other way.

Where a customer in a fixed-term agreement does not receive the quality of service they expect and the provider states that the issues are due to an infrastructure or network issue, we may consider other appropriate remedies. For example, we will determine whether it is fair and reasonable for the customer to pay an early cancellation penalty for a service that is not working as intended or whether the customer should receive compensation for the inconvenience.

Where customers have agreed to a fixed-term contract for wireless or internet services, we encourage them to take advantage of the 15-day trial period that is required under the Wireless and Internet Codes. The required trial period lets customers find out if all aspects of the service perform to their expectations. If the service does not meet expectations, customers should contact their provider during the 15-day trial period to discuss options or cancel their service without penalty.

We also encourage providers to give clear and accurate information to customers about internet services. This information should include things like expected service quality during peak periods and typical download and upload speeds. This information can help customers make more informed decisions. It lets them compare their personal expectations to the service quality the provider has told them to expect. This, in turn, can reduce confusion and frustration.

The CRTC plans to hold a public consultation on standardized information for internet services to help consumers easily compare plans, like labels about price and download speeds.

Issue spotlight: Increased customer challenges with cancelling or switching services and cancellation fees

This year, customers raised more issues with cancelling their service or transferring (porting) their services to another provider. Customers also raised more concerns about cancellation fees. There were considerable increases in these issues across various service types.

  • Termination fee issues increased by 35% from last year. This year, internet customers raised 42% of the cancellation issues and wireless customers raised 36%.
  • Unable to cancel issues increased by 47% this year, after a 31% jump last year.
  • Issues where customers could not transfer (port) their service increased by 25%, after a 23% increase last year.

We will continue to monitor these issues as one of the primary objectives of the CRTC’s consumer codes is for customers to be able to more easily switch providers in a dynamic marketplace.

Key message: cancelling or switching services

Customers have the right to cancel their phone, wireless, internet or TV services. They do not need to notify their provider in advance. After a provider gets a cancellation request from a customer, it must cancel the service right away, unless the customer asks that the service be cancelled at a later date. To transfer services to a new provider, customers should ask their new provider to do so on their behalf.

If customers want to change their phone, wireless, internet or TV services, the process should be easy. Billing should stop as soon as the customer cancels services. Transferring or cancelling service does not relieve the customer of their responsibility to make sure that their account is fully paid. For example, if the customer cancels a fixed-term agreement before the end of the commitment period, they may need to pay cancellation fees. The contract should clearly state the early cancellation fees that apply and how they will be calculated.

Where a customer complains about being unable to cancel or transfer services, we ask the provider to demonstrate that it followed the regulatory requirements and its processes to honour the customer’s cancellation or transfer request. When raised in the dispute, we will also find out if billing continued after processing the customer’s cancellation request and verify if any cancellation fees were calculated and applied as set out in the agreement. If we find that a provider made an error in the cancellation fee or did not stop billing after the cancellation, we will require the provider to refund these charges to the customer.

Credit management issues

Credit management issues account for 4% of all issues. About 90% of these are related to third-party credit reporting. A customer may complain that the service provider has improperly reported their account to a collection agency or credit bureau. These are often disputes over how the provider handled the customer’s credit information and how it affected their credit history. Credit management also includes issues about credit deposits or limits. These include security deposit requirements, amounts, refunds, and interest.

Third party credit reporting

The number of credit reporting issues increased from last year by 17%, after a 16% decrease noted in last year’s Annual Report. Wireless customers account for 59% of all credit reporting issues, followed by internet (27%), TV (9%) and local phone services (5%).

Figure 6.18: Third party credit reporting issues by service type
Table 6.20: Third party credit reporting – Top 3 service providers
Service provider Number of times issue was raised Proportion of issue
Rogers 389 32%
TELUS 203 17%
Bell 190 15%

Key message: third party credit reporting

When there is a dispute about credit reporting, the service provider must demonstrate that it had the authority to make a credit report. We assess whether the circumstances for making the credit report were valid. For example, did the customer fail to pay for the services by the due date? We also check to make sure the provider followed its own internal credit reporting procedures. For example, did it take the appropriate steps to report to the credit bureau? Was the reporting accurate?

If we find that the provider did not have a valid reason to report, we will require it to demonstrate that it has corrected the credit report. We will also consider whether the provider should compensate the customer for any proven loss, damage, or inconvenience arising directly from the unjustified credit reporting.

Reporting on CRTC consumer protection Codes of Conduct

Annual Report

August 1, 2023 – July 31, 2024

The CRTC codes of conduct outline specific behaviours through which service providers must honour its commitments to customers. The CCTS administers and reinforce these rules to ensure fairness for all parties concerned.

Overview of CRTC consumer protection codes of conduct

When the CCTS investigates customer complaints about telecom and TV services, we try to determine if the service provider reasonably met its responsibilities to the customer. The CRTC has issued four mandatory CRTC consumer protection codes of conduct that set minimum standards for service provider practices:

  • Wireless Code: For individual and small business customers. For our purposes, a small business is a business whose average monthly telecommunications bill is under $2,500. Corporate and commercial accounts are not small businesses.
  • Internet Code: For all retail fixed internet access services, including cable, fibre, digital subscriber line (DSL), fixed wireless and satellite services provided by Canada’s largest internet service providers and their brands and affiliates. Mobile wireless internet services are covered by the Wireless Code.
  • Television Service Provider (TVSP) Code: For residential subscription TV services provided by licensed TV service providers and their brands and affiliates.
  • Deposit & Disconnection (D&D) Code: For residential home phone services.

To learn about how we administer the CRTC codes of conduct, watch the video below.

For more detailed information about the preceding codes, see:

Resolving complaints and analyzing code compliance

When we accept a customer complaint, we record and track all of the issues raised in the complaint by the customer. Some complaints raise questions about whether a provider has complied with a code of conduct. We call these “alleged breaches.”

The vast majority of complaints are resolved to the satisfaction of the customer and the provider during the initial stage of our process. When complaints are resolved, there is no need for us to investigate the underlying issues, including to determine if there have been any violations of a code of conduct. Therefore, these issues remain characterized as “alleged breaches” and are categorized as “not requiring investigation” in the following figures.

In the cases that we do investigate, we can determine whether there has been a code violation. We categorize proven violations as “confirmed breaches”. One complaint may contain several confirmed breaches. These are some examples:

  • A code requirement was violated more than once.
  • A code violation affected more than one service or line associated with one customer account.
  • A complaint revealed violations of multiple provisions of a code.

When we investigate and determine that there has not been a violation, we categorize this as “no breach.”

Given that we investigate fewer cases to confirm if there has been a code violation, we advise caution in the use of confirmed breach numbers for analysis about systemic code compliance. For example, in 2023-24, the CCTS concluded 19,176 complaints, of which the vast majority were resolved by the customer and the service provider. Where resolution could not be reached, CCTS investigated 801 complaints to determine whether the provider met their obligations to the customer, from which we confirmed the code breaches detailed below.

This section presents statistical reports on breaches of the four applicable codes, using the terms explained above.

Wireless Code

The Wireless Code aims to ensure that consumers of mobile voice and data services know their rights and obligations as set out in their contracts. The Wireless Code makes it easier for individuals and small businesses to do three things:

  • understand their wireless service contracts
  • know when they will be charged extra for going over data limits or roaming (i.e., preventing bill shock); and,
  • switch wireless providers easily.

The Wireless Code applies to individuals and small businesses. All wireless service providers must follow its requirements.

Figure 7.1: Summary of Wireless Code breaches

From 2,246 alleged breaches, 2,174 alleged breaches did not require investigation and 72 breaches were investigated. Out of the 72 breaches investigated, 46 breaches were confirmed and 26 were not confirmed as a breach.

Summary of Wireless Code breaches

There were 46 confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code, a decrease of 4% year-over-year (YOY).

  • Disconnection (Section I): Section I of the Wireless Code continued to be the most breached requirement. Disconnection breaches accounted for 54% of all confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code (up from 40% last year). To breach this section, the service provider failed to do at least one of these things:
    • give the customer the required amount of notice before disconnection
    • provide all the required information in the disconnected notice.
  • Bill management (Section E): This year, Section E became the second most breached Wireless Code requirement. There was one confirmed breach last year and 13 this year. Bill management breaches accounted for 28% of all confirmed wireless breaches. To breach this section, the service provider failed to do at least one of the following:
    • notify the customer when they were internationally roaming
    • suspend data roaming charges once the cap threshold was reached.
  • Clarity (Section A): This year, there were three confirmed Wireless Code breaches about the provider’s failure to communicate with customers clearly, accurately, or in a timely way. There were two such breaches last year.
  • Contracts and related documents (Section B): We confirmed one breach related to problems related to contracts and related documents. There were 10 such breaches last year.
Table 7.1: Wireless Code confirmed breaches by section

Note: In charts throughout this report, year-over-year increases are shown in green, and year-over-year decrease are shown in red.

 

Wireless Code confirmed breaches by service provider

TELUS and Bell had the largest increases in Wireless Code breaches. TELUS’ Wireless Code breaches increased from four to 12, largely as a result of one complaint about multiple wireless lines, resulting in eight disconnection breaches. Bell’s Wireless Code breaches increased from five to 10. Most of those arose from one complaint, which resulted in seven roaming notification and data cap breaches.

This year, Tbaytel was confirmed to have breached the Wireless Code for the first time. It breached the code twice for failing to provide the required information to notify the customer about an automatic extension of a fixed-term contract (Section G, Contract cancellation and extension).

Virgin Plus, Koodo and Freedom Mobile saw a decrease in confirmed Wireless Code breaches this year.

Table 7.2: Wireless Code confirmed breaches by service provider

Internet Code

The Internet Code aims to ensure that customers of fixed internet services are better informed of their rights and responsibilities as set out in their contracts with internet service providers (ISPs). The Internet Code makes it easier for individual consumers to do three things:

  • understand their internet service contracts
  • know when they will be charged fees and when prices will increase
  • switch internet service providers easily.

The Internet Code applies only to individual customers. It does not apply to small businesses.

The Internet Code applies to large, facilities-based ISPs and their brands and affiliates. These are listed in Table 7.3. When we investigate a complaint about an ISP to which the Internet Code does not apply, we may use the principles of the Code to guide us in determining what is good industry practice.

Summary of Internet Code breaches

There were 12 confirmed breaches of the Internet Code this year, up from nine last year. These were the top confirmed breach areas:

  • Changes to contracts and related documents (Section D): four confirmed breaches (33% of confirmed Internet Code breaches)
  • Clarity (Section A): three confirmed breaches (25% of confirmed Internet Code breaches)
  • Equipment issues (Section F): three confirmed breaches (25% of confirmed Internet Code breaches).
Figure 7.2: Summary of Internet Code breaches

From 515 alleged breaches, 498 alleged breaches did not require investigation and 17 breaches were investigated. Out of the 17 breaches investigated, 12 breaches were confirmed and 5 were not confirmed as a breach.

Table 7.3: Service providers governed by the Internet Code
Large facilities-based Internet Service Providers Related Internet brands and affiliates
Bell Canada
  • Acanac Inc.
  • Bell Aliant
  • Bell MTS
  • Cablevision
  • Téléphone de Saint-Victor
  • Distributel
  • DMTS (Dryden Municipal Telephone System)
  • EBOX
  • KMTS (Kenora Municipal Telephone System)
  • Maskatel
  • Northern Tel
  • Northwestel*
  • Ontera
  • Primus
  • Télébec
  • Téléphone de Saint-Éphrem
  • ThinkTel
  • Virgin Plus
  • Télécommunications Xittel
Cogeco Connexion Inc. (Ontario and Quebec)
  • Oxio
Eastlink
  • Amtelecom Limited Partnership
  • Coast Cable
  • Delta Cable
  • K-Right Communications Inc.
  • People’s Tel LP
  • Persona Communications Inc.
Rogers
  • Cable Cable Inc.
  • Compton Communications
  • Comwave
  • Cross Country T.V. Limited
  • Fido
  • Kincardine Group
  • KWIC Internet
  • RuralWave
  • Seaside Communications Powered by Rogers
  • Seaside Wireless Communications Powered by Rogers
  • Shaw Communications
  • Source Cable
Sasktel
TELUS
  • ABC Communications
  • Altima Telecom
  • GTA Telecom
  • Koodo
  • Mascon Cable
  • start.ca
Videotron Ltd.
  • Fizz
  • Freedom Mobile Inc.
  • VMedia
Xplore
  • MetroLoop

* Northwestel has two kinds of internet services: terrestrial (on land) and satellite. Northwestel’s terrestrial retail internet services are regulated by the CRTC, therefore out of the CCTS’ mandate and customers should forward their complaint to the CRTC. Northwestel’s satellite retail internet is not regulated by the CRTC, so the CCTS can accept complaints about these services.

Internet Code confirmed breaches by service provider

This year was the first time Start.ca had any confirmed Internet Code breaches. With four confirmed breaches, it also accounted for the largest proportion (33%) of confirmed Internet Code breaches. These breaches were about the lack of clarity in its offer to a customer (Section A, Clarity), its failure to provide the required information in contracts and related documents (Section B), and lack of information about service outages (Section F, Equipment issues).

Cogeco accounted for 25% of all confirmed Internet breaches. It had three confirmed breaches, up from two last year. The confirmed breaches were about the lack of clarity in its offer to a customer (Section A), failure to provide the required information about changes to contracts and related documents (Section D), and failure to provide required disconnection notice information (Section I).

Table 7.4: Internet Code confirmed breaches by service provider

Television Service Provider Code

The Television Service Provider Code (TVSP Code) aims to make it easier for consumers to understand their television service agreements and to empower them in their relationships with TVSPs.

The TVSP Code applies to individual customers. It does not apply to small business customers. All licensed TV service providers must follow the TVSP Code requirements. We address complaints about subscription TV services provided via cable, Internet Protocol Television (IPTV), and national direct-to-home (DTH) satellite TV. There were four confirmed breaches to the TVSP Code this year, down from 14 last year.

Figure 7.3: Summary of TVSP Code breaches

From 32 alleged breaches, 27 alleged breaches did not require investigation and 5 breaches were investigated. Out of the 5 breaches investigated, 4 breaches were confirmed and 1 was not confirmed as a breach.

TVSP Code confirmed breaches by service provider

Rogers accounted for all four confirmed breaches of the TVSP Code, compared to zero breaches last year. All four confirmed breaches arose from a single complaint.

Table 7.5: TVSP Code confirmed breaches by service provider

Deposit and Disconnection Code

The Deposit and Disconnection Code (D&D Code) protects local phone customers in two situations:

  • when consumers are required to provide a deposit as a condition of obtaining local phone service
  • when a service provider intends to disconnect the consumer’s local phone service

There were five confirmed breaches to the D&D Code this year, up from one breach last year.

Figure 7.4: Summary of D&D Code breaches

From 22 alleged breaches, 14 alleged breaches did not require investigation and 8 breaches were investigated. Out of the 8 breaches investigated, 5 breaches were confirmed and 3 was not confirmed as a breach.

D&D Code confirmed breaches by service provider

Rogers accounted for four confirmed breaches to the D&D Code this year, up from zero last year. These breaches arose from one complaint, that Rogers failed to notify the customer in advance of service suspension as required by the Code.

AIC Global Communications had one confirmed D&D breach this year, up from zero last year. This breach arose when AIC failed to refund a customer’s security deposit.

Table 7.6: Deposit and Disconnection Code confirmed breaches by service provider

Working with service providers

Annual Report

August 1, 2023 – July 31, 2024

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) requires all phone, internet, and licensed TV service providers in Canada to participate in the CCTS, so customers have recourse for complaints they cannot solve with their provider.

If a service provider is not already a participant of the CCTS when one of their customers submits a complaint to us, they must join. A service provider who has joined the CCTS and follows the requirements of the program, is called a Participating Service Provider (PSP).

By the end of 2023-24, the CCTS worked with 436 brands operated by 311 participating service providers. Of the 436 brands, 257 had no complaints, and 95 brands had three or fewer complaints. Together, the 25 most complained-about PSPs or “top 25” PSPs (detailed below) account for 96% of all complaints accepted. The remaining 4% of accepted complaints were raised by customers of 154 brands.

In 2023–24, the CCTS welcomed 11 new PSPs to our program.

The top 25 service providers account for 96% of all accepted complaints.

Data-driven insights

Our reports provide information about the issues customers experience and have difficulty resolving with their service provider. We identify issues and trends that are occurring in the telecom-television landscape. By reporting on issues and trends by service provider, we help providers identify opportunities for improvement so they can better meet customer needs.

National PSP groups complaint analysis: five-year review

In this section, we review the percentage of customer complaints related to national service provider groups. These groups represent the largest telecom and TV providers. They offer wireless service nationally to consumers and internet, phone and TV service to large regions of Canada. These providers offer services to customers through various brands, subsidiaries and affiliates.

National PSP groups complaint proportion analysis across the last five years

  • Rogers group: Rogers Communications, Source Cable Ltd., Simply Connect, Kincardine Group, Fido, Compton Communications, Cityfone, Chatr Wireless, Cable Cable, Cross Country TV, RuralWave, Seaside Communications powered by Rogers, Seaside Wireless powered by Rogers, Zoomer, Shaw, Shaw Direct, KWIC Internet, Comwave, Call Select, NetReach, Telizon Inc.
  • Bell group: Bell Canada, Bell Aliant, Bell MTS, Dryden Municipal Telephone System (DMTS), Kenora Municipal Telephone System (KMTS), Lucky Mobile, PC Mobile (Pre-Paid), Solo Mobile, Virgin Plus, Bell Mobility, Vox, Bell Satellite TV, Axia FibreNet, Distributel, Acanac, Navigata, EBOX, Primus, Télébec, Cablevision du Nord de Québec, Groupe Maskatel Québec S.E.C., NorthernTel, Ontera, Northwestel, 10-10-580, 450Tel, Telecommunications Xittel, Téléphone de St-Victor, Téléphone de St- Éphrem, Telephone Upton, ThinkTel, Unlimitel, Wintel, Yak
  • TELUS group: TELUS Communications Inc., Koodo, Mascon, Public Mobile, TELUS Satellite, ABC Communications, Start.ca, Altima Telecom, GTA Telecom Inc., GoCo., Velocity Networks Inc.
  • Videotron group: Videotron, Fizz, Freedom Mobile, VMedia
Figure 8.1: Accepted complaints trend over four national PSP groups

NOTE: In 2023-24, we added the Videotron group to the national PSP groups. This is because it acquired Freedom Mobile which offers wireless services nationally.

Figure 8.2: Proportion of accepted complaints for the four national PSP groups

* In 2023-24, we added the Videotron group to the national PSP groups. This is because it acquired Freedom Mobile which offers wireless services nationally.

  • Rogers acquired Comwave and its affiliates Call Select, NetReach and Telizon Inc.
  • The Rogers, Bell and TELUS groups continued to show an upward trend in complaints this year. The three largest PSP groups accounted for 86% of all 20,147 accepted complaints, up from 81% last year and 72% in 2021-22. With the Videotron PSP group added in 2023-24, the four national PSP groups account for 93% of all accepted complaints.
  • Among three national PSP groups (Rogers, Bell and TELUS), the Rogers group had the most significant increase in the proportion of total complaints over the last five years. Its proportion of accepted complaints increased to 36% this year, up 3% from last year and up 12% from 2021-22.
  • The Bell group accounted for 24% of all accepted complaints across all service providers, down 1% from the previous year. Though down proportionately, the Bell group saw an increase in complaints of 37% this year.
  • Since 2018, the proportion of complaints accepted about the Bell group has decreased from 40% to 24%. At the same time, the Rogers group has shown an upward trend in their proportion of accepted complaints over the last six years, from 15% in 2018 to 39% this year.
  • This year, the TELUS group accounted for 23% of all accepted complaints across all service providers, up from 20% last year. TELUS saw an increase of 57% in complaints since last year’s report.

Top 25 Participating Service Providers

96% of all accepted complaints were about 25 service providers.

Together, the top 25 PSP brands account for 96% of all accepted complaints in 2023-24, up from 95% last year. The remaining 4% of accepted complaints were filed about 154 different service providers.

Top 3: Rogers, Bell and TELUS remain the top three service providers based on complaint volume. All three providers experienced a large increase from our previous annual report. Compared to the 38% increase in complaints across all service providers, the top three brands experienced significant increases:

    • Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers): 68% increase
    • Bell Canada (Bell): 46% increase
    • TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS): 53% increase

Top 10: Overall, with one exception the service providers in last year’s top 10 stayed on the list in 2023-24. Public Mobile replaced Fizz in the top 10 list, up from 14th place last year. Public Mobile’s complaints increased this year to 793 from 115 in 2022-23.

  • Although most of the service providers in the top 10 had an increase in accepted complaints, Koodo had 5% fewer complaints than last year, and Videotron had 14% fewer complaints than last year.

Top 25: Together, the top 25 PSP brands account for 96% of all accepted complaints. These are the notable changes to the top 25 list:

  • While there was year-over-year growth of 38% for overall complaints, some PSPs had significant increases: Public Mobile, Altima Telecom, Distributel, Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw, TELUS, and Bell. Complaint volume and year-over-year changes can be found in Table 8.1 below.
  • Last year, Altima Telecom (TELUS group) entered the top 25 list from number 30 and Distributel (Bell group) entered the top 25 list from number 38.
  • Comwave dropped from 18th to 25th place this year with the YOY decrease of 39% in accepted complaints compared to the 38% increase for all service providers. Comwave’s complaint numbers represent the largest YOY decrease within the top 25 list.

Below is an overview of the top 25 most complained about service provider brands.  The data reflects individual brands, not their ownership groups.

 

Table 8.1: Top 25 PSP brands by complaints accepted

* The number of concluded complaints can be higher than the number of accepted complaints because some complaints accepted in 2022-23 were concluded in 2023-24.
† The resolution rate is the percentage of all resolved complaints versus all concluded complaints (87.8% overall).
‡ The escalation rate is the percentage of all escalated complaints versus all concluded complaints (19% overall).

NOTE: Where a complaint remains unresolved after the Initial Referral period, the complaint escalates to Conciliation or Investigation.

Figure 8.3: Top 10 PSP brands by complaints accepted

 

Figure 8.4: Top 10 PSP brands by resolution rate

The resolution rate is the percentage of all resolved complaints vs. all concluded complaints (87.8% overall).

Rogers

Wireless Internet Phone TV

Highlights

  • We accepted 68% more complaints about Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) this year after a 44% increase in 2022-23. These are notable jumps, compared to a 38% increase in complaints for all service providers in 2023-24, and a 14% increase in 2022-23.
  • Rogers continued its upward trend in proportional complaint volume over five years from 11% in 2019-20 to 24% of all complaints accepted this year.
  • Wireless: This year, Rogers’ customers raised 77% more issues about its wireless services. Wireless issues account for 46% of all Rogers’ issues, up from 45% last year.
  • Internet and TV issues both increased for Rogers this year.
    • Rogers’ customers raised internet issues 85% more often than last year — compared to a 50% increase across all service providers. Internet issues account for 33% of all Rogers’ issues, up from 31% last year.
    • Rogers’ TV issues grew by 57% YOY, while issues about TV services across all service providers increased by 46%.
  • What contributed to the growth in complaints for Rogers this year:
    • incorrect charge for monthly price plan: 91% increase
    • contract disclosure issues: 79% increase
    • credit or refund not received: 128% increase
    • regular price increase of monthly price plans: 447% increase
  • Issues about service delivery made up a smaller portion of Rogers’ major issues this year, dropping from 31% to 23%. Across all service providers, these issues fell slightly from 30% to 28% this year. Despite this, total issues about service delivery at Rogers increased by 29%.
  • Code breaches: Rogers breached CRTC codes 13 times this year, up from four last year. See Reporting on CRTC Consumer Protection Codes of Conduct section of the Annual Report for more detail.

Statistics

4,855 accepted complaints
+67.8% YoY change in accepted complaints 24.1% of all accepted complaints
4,367 resolved complaints
3,958 resolved at initial referral 409 resolved at conciliation or investigation 90.5% resolution rate
(all PSPs – 87.8%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
16% incorrect charge for monthly price plan 15% disclosure issues 9% credit or refund not received
13 Code breaches
4 Wireless Code breaches 1 Internet Code breach 4 TVSP Code breaches 4 D&D Code breaches

Bell

Wireless Internet Phone TV

Highlights

  • We accepted 46% more complaints about Bell Canada (Bell) this year, up from 7% last year. This increase comes after three years of Bell complaint decreases.
  • Bell accounts for 17% of all accepted complaints, up slightly from 16% last year.
  • Wireless: Bell’s customers raised 50% more wireless issues than last year. These issues account for 46% of all issues raised by its customers. The average proportion of wireless issues across all service providers is 52%.
  • Internet: Internet issues account for 28% of all Bell issues, slightly down from 29% last year. Still, Bell customers raised 38% more issues this year about its internet services than last year.
  • TV: Bell’s customers raised 54% more issues about TV services than last year. TV issues account for 13% of all Bell issues, up from 12% last year.
  • Bell’s top issue this year was incorrect charge for monthly price plan, accounting for 15% of all issues raised about the service provider.
  • Code breaches: Bell breached CRTC codes 11 times this year, up from five last year. See Reporting on CRTC Consumer Protection Codes of Conduct section of the Annual Report for more detail.

Statistics

3,430 accepted complaints
+45.7% YoY change in accepted complaints 17.0% of all accepted complaints
2,645 resolved complaints
2,093 resolved at initial referral 552 resolved at conciliation or investigation 83.4% resolution rate
(all PSPs – 87.8%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
15% incorrect charge for monthly price plan 12% disclosure issues 10% quality of service
11 Code breaches
10 Wireless Code breaches 1 Internet Code breach 0 TVSP Code breaches 0 D&D Code breaches

TELUS

Wireless Internet Phone TV

Highlights

  • We accepted 53% more complaints about TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS) than last year. This is a significant increase given that complaints about all service providers increased by 38%.
  • TELUS accounts for 14% of all complaints, up from 12% last year. This is the third year in a row where TELUS’ share of complaints has increased.
  • Wireless: Wireless issues represent 47% of all TELUS’ issues, down from 57% last year. However, TELUS’ customers raised 21% more wireless issues than last year. This is similar to the year-over-year increase of 27% across all service providers.
  • Internet: Internet issues account for 30% of all TELUS’ issues, up from 23% last year. Issues around internet services were a major pain point for TELUS’ customers this year. Customers raised 91% more issues with TELUS’ internet this year. The increase across all service providers was 50%.
  • TV: TV issues account for 12% of all TELUS’ issues, up from 9% last year. However, TELUS’ TV customers raised 82% more issues than last year. The increase across all service providers was 46%.
  • TELUS’ customers raised the following issues more often than last year:
    • incorrect charge for monthly price plan (top issue): 73% increase
    • disclosure issues: 48% increase
    • credit or refund not received: 155% increase
    • regular price increase – monthly price plans: 234% increase
  • Code breaches: Though TELUS had fewer code breaches this year, it still accounted for 26% of all Wireless Code breaches with 12 confirmed breaches. See Reporting on CRTC Consumer Protection Codes of Conduct section of the Annual Report for more detail.

Statistics

2,757 accepted complaints
+53.3% YoY change in accepted complaints 13.7% of all accepted complaints
2,263 resolved complaints
2,102 resolved at initial referral 161 resolved at conciliation or investigation 89.6% resolution rate
(all PSPs – 87.8%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
18% incorrect charge for monthly price plan 15% disclosure issues 9% quality of service
13 Code breaches
12 Wireless Code breaches 1 Internet Code breach 0 TVSP Code breaches 0 D&D Code breaches

Fido (Rogers group)

Wireless Internet

Highlights

  • We accepted 19% more complaints about Fido than last year. This is lower than the 38% increase in complaints across all providers.
  • Fido accounts for 10% of all accepted complaints, down from 12% last year.
  • Wireless: Issues raised about Fido wireless services account for 88% of all its issues. This proportion of complaints shifted slightly from last year, down from 91%. This year, Fido’s customers raised 16% more issues about its wireless services.
  • Internet: Internet issues account for 11% of Fido’s total issues, up from 9% last year and 8% the year before.
  • Fido’s customers raised the following issues more often than last year:
    • credit management issues: 61% increase
    • regular price increase of monthly price plans: 293%
    • credit or refund not received: 75% increase
  • Code breaches: We confirmed two Wireless Code breaches for Fido this year. See Reporting on CRTC Consumer Protection Codes of Conduct section of the Annual Report for more detail.

Statistics

2,030 accepted complaints
+19.1% YoY change in accepted complaints 10.1% of all accepted complaints
1,867 resolved complaints
1,714 resolved at initial referral 153 resolved at conciliation or investigation 90.7% resolution rate
(all PSPs – 87.8%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
16% incorrect charge for monthly price plan 13% disclosure issues 13% credit or refund not received
2 Code breaches
2 Wireless Code breaches 0 Internet Code breaches

Koodo (TELUS group)

Wireless Internet

Highlights

  • We accepted 5% fewer complaints about Koodo this year. This is much lower than the 38% increase in all complaints across all service providers.
  • Koodo accounts for 5% of all accepted complaints, down from 7% last year.
  • Customers raised 18% fewer issues about Koodo than last year. This is significant because issues with all service providers increased by 35% at the same time.
  • Wireless: Most (99%) of the complaints Koodo’s customers submitted to us were about its wireless services.
  • Internet: Within the last year, Koodo began to offer internet services. We saw a small number of complaints about this.
  • Driving Koodo’s decreases in issues: disclosure (35% decrease), roaming (64% decrease), incorrect charge for monthly price plan (22% decrease) and third-party charges (83% decrease).
  • Code breaches: This year, Koodo breached the Wireless Code three times, down from five times last year and eight times in 2021-22. See Reporting on CRTC Consumer Protection Codes of Conduct section of the Annual Report for more detail.

Statistics

965 accepted complaints
-5.0% YoY change in accepted complaints 4.8% of all accepted complaints
796 resolved complaints
733 resolved at initial referral 63 resolved at conciliation or investigation 88.1% resolution rate
(all PSPs – 87.8%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
14% incorrect charge for monthly price plan 12% disclosure issues 10% quality of service
3 Code breaches
3 Wireless Code breaches 0 Internet Code breaches

Freedom Mobile (Videotron group)

Wireless Internet

Highlights

  • We accepted 6% more complaints about Freedom Mobile (Freedom) this year, compared to 38% across all service providers. Freedom accounts for 4% of all accepted complaints, down from 6% last year.
  • Wireless: Most of Freedom’s issues remain about wireless services (98%, up from 97% last year).
  • Internet: Freedom’s customers raised 13% fewer issues about internet services this year. At the same time, customers raised 50% more issues about internet services across all service providers.
  • Billing issues were raised 14% less than last year by Freedom’s customers. These account for 38% of the total issues from Freedom, down from 44% last year. The decrease in billing issues for Freedom was largely due to a decrease in issues about roaming charges, down 62% since last year’s report.
  • Code breaches: Freedom had one code breach this year. See Reporting on CRTC Consumer Protection Codes of Conduct section of the Annual Report for more detail.

Statistics

885 accepted complaints
+5.7% YoY change in accepted complaints 4.4% of all accepted complaints
819 resolved complaints
755 resolved at initial referral 44 resolved at conciliation or investigation 94.0% resolution rate
(all PSPs – 87.8%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
15% disclosure issues 11% incorrect charge for monthly price plan 11% quality of service
1 Code breach
1 Wireless Code breach 0 Internet Code breaches

Virgin Plus (Bell group)

Wireless Internet TV

Highlights

  • We accepted 2% more complaints about Virgin Plus this year, compared to an increase of 38% across all service providers.
  • This year, Virgin Plus accounts for 4% of all accepted complaints, down from 6% last year.
  • Wireless: Virgin Plus’ customers raised 1% more wireless issues since last year. This accounts for 85% of all its issues. Comparatively, wireless issues increased by 27% across all service providers.
  • Internet: Virgin Plus’ customers raised 18% fewer internet issues than last year. In contrast, this issue increased 50% over all service providers. Internet issues account for 14% of all issues for Virgin Plus down from 16% last year. The decrease in the number of internet issues customers raised against Virgin Plus follows last year’s first drop after seven years of increases.
  • Issues reported about incorrect charge for monthly price plans and credit or refund not received increased this year for Virgin Plus, by 3% and 20%, respectively. Disclosure issues moved down from top spot last year, to the second most reported issue by Virgin Plus’ customers this year with a 23% decrease in issues.
  • Issues reported about incorrect charges for monthly price plans and credits or refunds not received increased this year for Virgin Plus, by 3% and 20%, respectively. Disclosure issues moved down from top spot last year, to the second most reported issue by Virgin’s customers this year with a 23% decrease in issues.
  • Code breaches: We confirmed that Virgin Plus breached CRTC codes five times, down from 14 times last year. All Virgin Plus’ breaches were of the Wireless Code. See Reporting on CRTC Consumer Protection Codes of Conduct section of the Annual Report for more detail.

Statistics

850 accepted complaints
+1.7% YoY change in accepted complaints 4.2% of all accepted complaints
690 resolved complaints
527 resolved at initial referral 163 resolved at conciliation or investigation 85.4% resolution rate
(all PSPs – 87.8%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
13% incorrect charge for monthly price plan 12% disclosure issues 10% credit or refund not received
5 Code breaches
5 Wireless Code breaches 0 Internet Code breaches 0 TVSP Code breaches

Public Mobile (TELUS group)

Wireless

Highlights

  • Complaints about Public Mobile increased from 115 last year to 793 accepted complaints this year.
  • The increase in complaints about Public Mobile was largely driven by the retirement of its legacy rewards program. This program let customers use loyalty credits to reduce the monthly cost of their pre-paid wireless services. Customers looked to us to confirm whether Public Mobile’s terms of service permitted this change. They were concerned that they would lose reward program credits. We reviewed the circumstances of each customer’s unresolved complaint to ensure that Public Mobile complied with relevant codes and its contractual obligations to each customer who raised an issue with us.
  • Public Mobile’s customers raised 477% more issues than last year (from 149 issues in 2021-22 to 860 in 2022-23).
    • The primary driver of the rise in issues is due to increased reports about credits or refund not received, which increased from five issues last year to 232 this year. Comparatively, credit or refunds not received increased by 108% across all service providers for wireless services.
    • The second major driver is the increase in reported issues about changes to the contract increased from eight issues to 228, an increase of 2,750%. In contrast, issues about changes to the contract for wireless services increased by 33% across all service providers.
  • Code breaches: Public Mobile had no confirmed code breaches this year.

Statistics

793 accepted complaints
+589.6% YoY change in accepted complaints 3.9% of all accepted complaints
362 resolved complaints
236 resolved at initial referral 126 resolved at conciliation or investigation 70.3% resolution rate
(all PSPs – 87.8%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
27% credit or refund not received 27% changes to the contract 10% quality of service
0 Code breaches
0 Wireless Code breaches

Shaw (Rogers group)

Wireless Internet Phone TV

Highlights

  • We accepted 62% more complaints about Shaw this year compared to a 38% increase in complaints for all service providers.
  • Shaw accounts for 4% of all accepted complaints, up from 3% last year.
  • Shaw’s customers raised 56% more issues, while issues across all service providers increased by 35%. Many of Shaw’s issues increased disproportionately since last year’s annual report when compared to all service providers.
  • Wireless: In the fall of 2023, following the Rogers-Shaw merger, Rogers migrated Shaw’s wireless customers to Rogers. Issues with Shaw’s wireless services decreased 11% this year and account for 6% of all issues raised by Shaw’s customers.
  • Internet: Shaw’s customers raised 64% more internet issues year-over-year, compared to the 50% increase across all providers. Internet issues account for 55% of all issues raised about all Shaw’s services, up from 52% last year.
  • TV: Shaw’s customers raised 75% more issues about its TV services than last year. In contrast, there was a 46% increase on the same issue across all service providers. Issues about TV services account for 28% of all Shaw issues, up from 25% last year.
  • Some of Shaw’s leading issues about intermittent service (37% increase), disclosure (52% increase) and incorrect charge for monthly price plan (56% increase) all increased disproportionately to global changes (i.e. 12%, 21% and 47% across all service providers, respectively).
  • Code breaches: Shaw had no confirmed breaches this year, down from eight breaches of the Wireless Code last year.

Statistics

705 accepted complaints
+62.1% YoY change in accepted complaints 3.5% of all accepted complaints
593 resolved complaints
516 resolved at initial referral 77 resolved at conciliation or investigation 88.2% resolution rate
(all PSPs – 87.8%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
15% quality of service 11% disclosure issues 10% incorrect charge for monthly price plan
0 Code breaches
0 Wireless Code breaches 0 Internet Code breaches 0 TVSP Code breaches 0 D&D Code breaches

Videotron

Wireless Internet Phone TV

Highlights

  • We accepted 14% fewer complaints about Videotron Ltd. (Videotron) than last year. This is much lower than the 38% increase in all complaints across all service providers.
  • Videotron accounts for 2% of all accepted complaints, down from 3% last year and 5% the year before. With the decrease in complaint volume, Videotron shifted from the eighth most complained about provider last year to the 10th this year.
  • Videotron customers raised 11% fewer issues this year.
  • Wireless: Videotron’s wireless issues make up 29% of all its issues, down from 34% last year. Its customers raised this issue 25% less than last year. At the same time wireless issues increased by 27% across all service providers.
  • Internet: Videotron’s customers raised 1% fewer issues about its internet services than last year. At the same time, internet issues across all service providers increased by 50%. Internet issues account for 38% of Videotron’s issues, a slight increase from 34% reported last year. At the same time internet issues increased by 46% across all service providers
  • Billing accounted for two of the top three issues raised by Videotron’s customers this year. Many of these were about incorrect charge for monthly price plan (10% decrease), disclosure issues (25% decrease), and credit or refund not received (45% increase).
  • Code breaches: Videotron breached the Internet Code once this year, down from five last year and 10 in 2021-22. See Reporting on CRTC Consumer Protection Codes of Conduct section of the Annual Report for more detail.

Statistics

422 accepted complaints
-13.9% YoY change in accepted complaints 2.1% of all accepted complaints
381 resolved complaints
333 resolved at initial referral 48 resolved at conciliation or investigation 87.4% resolution rate
(all PSPs – 87.8%)
Top 3 issues across all service types
16% incorrect charge for monthly price plan 16% disclosure issues 10% credit or refund not received
1 Code breach
0 Wireless Code breaches 1 Internet Code breach 0 TVSP Code breaches 0 D&D Code breaches

Monitoring service provider compliance

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) requires all providers of retail telecom services and licensed TV service providers in Canada to participate in the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (CCTS). This requirement ensures that all consumers in Canada can benefit from our free and effective services no matter which service provider they choose to do business with.

We regularly update information about service provider non-compliance on a dedicated webpage. We publish the names of providers that have been referred to the CRTC for failure to join the CCTS when required, or who were expelled for not complying with their obligations. We publish this information to help consumers make informed choices when choosing service providers. We also publish annual compliance reports: in May 2024, we published the 2023 Compliance Report Cards. These identify service providers and their compliance with CCTS participation requirements.

There are two categories of service provider requirements:

Compliance with the requirement to join the CCTS

We currently have 311 participating service providers, operating 436 brands. But there are still some providers, mainly smaller ones and those who are new to the industry, who have not yet joined. Any service provider not yet enrolled must join when one of their customers files a complaint with us. Sometimes service providers choose to sign up with us of their own accord.

We do everything in our power to help service providers join the CCTS and we are generally successful. Between August 1, 2023, and July 31, 2024, we enrolled 11 new service providers. This took an average of 30 days from when we contacted them to when they enrolled.

Unfortunately, some providers refuse to join. If we cannot persuade them to follow this CRTC requirement, we refer the matter to the CRTC for further action. In 2023-24, we referred two providers, FVN Alliance Inc. and Crystal HDV Communications, to the CRTC for failure to join the CCTS.

On January 11, 2024, the CRTC issued a decision against Optitel Mobile Inc., a provider that we had previously referred to the CRTC for failure to join the CCTS. The CRTC found that Optitel was no longer operating but that it had violated the Telecommunications Act by failing to join the CCTS when required.

Compliance with Participating Service Provider requirements

After a provider has become a PSP, it must adhere to the requirements outlined in the CCTS Participation Agreement. The following are some things they must do:

  • Comply with the CCTS Procedural Code, including implementing all remedies awarded to customers by CCTS. This Code contains the rules for the CCTS’ complaint-handling process.
  • Carry out their obligations under the CCTS Public Awareness Plan, including the obligation to inform customers about their right of recourse to the CCTS.
  • Pay fees and disclose certain financial information.

We monitor PSP compliance with these requirements regularly and work with PSPs to bring them into compliance. If a PSP continues to be non-compliant, we have a range of enforcement tools. We can even expel non-compliant PSPs from the CCTS. This triggers a referral to the CRTC for further action.

In 2023-24, we terminated the participation of InnSys Inc. for failure to comply with a number of mandatory CCTS requirements and referred it to the CRTC for further action.

To ensure that the CCTS complaint-handling process is efficient and effective, the CCTS monitors PSP compliance with our process. Where a PSP does not comply with our process, we will step in. We concluded more than 19,000 complaints this year and found 15 cases of major non-compliance with our complaint-handling process.

  • We confirmed 11 cases in which the PSP failed to provide its customers with the remedy they were entitled to following our complaint-handling process. Those providers are:
    • Rogers Communications (3)
    • TELUS (2)
    • Bell Canada
    • Public Mobile
    • NFTC Telecom
    • Fido
    • Tamaani Internet
    • Surf Media Inc.

After we engaged with each PSP, the PSP provided the customer with the required remedy.

  • Four providers threatened customers with legal action, fees or disconnection of service because the customer filed a complaint with us. These were:
  • WISP Online
  • Vaxxine.com
  • Mazagan Telecom
  • Cooptel

In each case, we told the PSP that this was not allowed, and the PSP confirmed it would not proceed with the threat.

Working with customers

Annual Report

August 1, 2023 – July 31, 2024

We are committed to listening to and working with consumers to help achieve our mission of providing an impartial, fair, and effective complaint-handling process.

This section is an overview of what we’ve heard from customers over the past year. Customer feedback plays an important role in shaping how we deliver our services.

Listening to customers

The vision of the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (CCTS) is to provide exceptional complaint resolution that strengthens Canada’s telecommunications and television landscape. We regularly survey customers who use our service to get their impressions of our work. This helps us to refocus our efforts for improvement. For example, customer feedback helps us to assess the effectiveness of the public awareness initiatives we require Participating Service Providers (PSPs) to implement.

In 2023-24 we received more than 4,900 survey responses from customers. This reflects a higher engagement level with a 5% year-over-year increase in our survey response rate. We are pleased to report that customers continue to be overwhelmingly satisfied with both the service they received from CCTS staff and the ease of filing a complaint.

Note: Numbers may be rounded.

“I truly believe that without your help I would never have had my dispute resolved.”

— Customer who used the CCTS’ services

What customers said about the CCTS

We asked our customers for the following information:

Is it important to have an independent organization to deal with telecom and TV complaints that has the authority to provide customers with compensation?

Was it easy to file your complaint with the CCTS?

Feedback on whether the service you received from CCTS representatives met your expectations.

Feedback on whether the service you received from our complaint resolution officers met your expectations.

Feedback on overall satisfaction with various aspects of our process.

Timelines: Did we complete our work in a reasonable amount of time?

Professionalism: Were we professional, knowledgeable and courteous?

Impartiality: Did we act without favouritism to either you or your service provider?

“It took less than a week for my service provider to resolve the complaint when CCTS stepped in. I spent over two months trying to resolve it myself.”

— Customer who used the CCTS’ services

What customers said about service provider public awareness activities

How did you find out about the CCTS?

Service providers must notify customers about the CCTS at a specified point during their internal complaint-handling process. We asked our customers:

Did your service provider tell you about the CCTS during your efforts to resolve the problem?

Service providers are required to print a prescribed message about the CCTS on customer bills four times a year. We asked our customers:

In the last year, did you see a notice about the CCTS on a bill you received from your service provider?

Service providers are required to place a prescribed notice about the CCTS in a reasonably prominent place on their websites and to include a link to the CCTS website. We asked our customers:

Did you see a dedicated complaint section on your service provider’s website giving you information about the CCTS?

CCTS requires participating service providers (PSPs) to comply with requirements to inform their customers about the CCTS. The CCTS annually audits select PSP websites and documentation to assess compliance. We engage with non-compliant providers to educate and rectify non-compliance with our provider obligations to promote awareness about the CCTS. Read more about our public awareness compliance work in our 2023 Public Awareness Plan Compliance Report Card.

What customers said about their attempts to resolve complaints with service providers

We asked customers about their interactions with service providers before the CCTS became involved.

 

How long did you try to resolve your problem directly with your service provider before bringing your complaint to the CCTS?

Nearly 45% of respondents said they tried for more than two months to resolve their problem directly with their service provider before turning to the CCTS for help.

 

How many levels of escalation (front line customer service, supervisor, manager, etc.) did your complaint go through with the service provider before you filed a complaint with the CCTS?

Almost 80% of customers experienced two or more levels of escalation before filing a complaint.

Public awareness of the CCTS

We remain deeply committed to increasing the public’s awareness of the CCTS and the recourse available to consumers through our complaint-handling process.

This past year, we began to implement a more robust public awareness strategy. This new initiative will help us to do three things:

  • reach more consumers
  • increase consumers’ understanding of who we are and what we do
  • help customers know when they should seek our help

We also began efforts to reach vulnerable consumers, and we are planning more activities this year to focus on harder-to-reach consumers.

Building on the success of our first digital campaign in 2022-23, the CCTS continued with more digital and media activities to provide information about the role we play in the telecom and TV ecosystem.

  • Social media: We improved the consistency of our social media presence this past year and incorporated paid advertising into our activities. Content was timely, relevant and informational, using visuals and videos to draw in consumer engagement. We saw an increase in positive engagement on social media year-over-year. During a 90-day campaign from May to July 2024, our social media advertising content received more than 15 million views and drove 27,000 visits to our website. We also targeted advertising on social media to harder-to-reach consumers and were able to reach more seniors and rural consumers.
  • Search engine marketing and website optimization: We used Google Ad Grants advertising as a not-for-profit to bring information about the CCTS to a wider audience and to make our content more readily available. We also added relevant keywords to our website to make it easier for telecom consumers to find us online.
  • Public relations: Our publications and news releases have traditionally been the main way consumers learned about our complaints-handling process. This year, we added new media outreach activities to grow our public awareness efforts. We used a combination of proactive media outreach, responding to media inquiries, and editorial placements. This resulted in the CCTS being mentioned throughout the year in top-tier national media outlets as well as local, community and niche publications. Our 60-second radio spot was picked up more than 300 times across the country and articles mentioning the CCTS had an audience reach of more than 6 million readers.

Our collective activities reached a wide audience and generated a 60% increase in website visitors this year. Building sustained public awareness about the CCTS is a shared responsibility. Together with our stakeholders, we are committed to enhancing the public understanding of the CCTS and our role as a dispute-resolution resource for people in Canada. Partnerships with civil society groups and consumer advocacy organizations increase our visibility and provide meaningful input to our stakeholder relations work.

Commitment to accessibility

A core operating principle of our strategic plan is to ensure that anyone in Canada, including those living with a disability, can reach us and use our services easily. Our commitment is deeply rooted and reflects the principles of the Accessible Canada Act and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (our head office is located in Ontario). These guide us in upholding values of independence, dignity, integration and equality of opportunity.

We consult with accessibility groups and under-represented and under-served communities every year. This helps us to understand how we can better serve all telecom and television customers in Canada. In 2023-24, we convened a forum with representatives from three accessibility groups. We discussed how to continue to improve public awareness of the CCTS within the accessibility community. The participating groups suggested ways to make our videos and ad content more accessible. They also offered to work with us to further promote awareness of who we are and what we can do for customers.

While we strive to ensure that our services are accessible, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) sets the industry standards and requirements for accessibility of telecom services. We continue to monitor accessibility-related issues within complaints. We refer complaints about accessibility issues to the CRTC to ensure a smooth process for the customer.

For more information about our accessibility policies and guidelines, see our Accessibility web page and Accessibility Plan.

“Escalating to the CCTS was absolutely the best decision. I have a neurologic disorder and lots of cognitive & sensory processing difficulties. I appreciated that when I let the CCTS person that I called know about what accommodations would be helpful to me, they were very much on board and helped make filing a complaint very straightforward.”

— Customer requiring accessibility accomodations

Gaining insights on customer experiences

Understanding the diverse needs and challenges of consumers across the country remains a cornerstone of our commitment to serving people in Canada. Twice in 2023-24, we met with our Consumer Advisory Panel, a group composed of a variety of Canadian consumer advocacy groups. Meeting with this panel does two things:

  • It allows us to help consumers to better understand our mandate, operations and reporting.
  • It helps us to find ways to work with these groups to broaden our outreach to consumers.

This year, we brought together eight groups representing a diversity of interests who, together, represented vulnerable and hard-to-reach consumers and consumers from geographically diverse regions across Canada. During this year’s sessions, we heard about a number of top-of-mind issues that affect customers’ experiences with their telecom and TV service providers. Consumers are navigating more complex telecom and TV service offerings in a world where digital connection is critical, and household spending is under pressure. We gleaned useful insight about topics on which we could provide more guidance for consumers. Consumer groups expressed overall support for our plan to increase public awareness and to tailor specific digital campaigns to individuals in at-risk communities. We continue to look for ways to work with groups in this forum to increase the impact of our public awareness activities. For example, we received valuable feedback on how to make our advertising resonate better with targeted audiences. Consumer groups said that it is important for service providers to tell their customers about the CCTS when they have an unresolved problem. They also suggested ways to increase service providers’ awareness obligations.

Consumer groups also recognized the CCTS Annual Report as a valuable resource. They suggested ways to make our data even more transparent.

We look forward to future discussions with consumer advocacy and accessibility groups as they help us to improve our understanding of the customer experience and the unique needs of vulnerable consumers.

Other statistical highlights

Annual Report

August 1, 2023 – July 31, 2024

Contact Centre activities

Our Contact Centre received approximately 124,000 communications in 2023-24. This represents a 27% increase from last year (up from 98,000). Consumers contacted us by telephone, in writing and through our online chat.

Phone calls continue to be the most-used type of communication. The second most-used type of communication is written correspondence, which includes our online complaint form. Online chat sessions were used least.

Table 10.1: Communications received
Type of communication 2023-24 YoY change
Written correspondence 58,044 +76%
Phone calls answered 63,086 +3%
Chat sessions answered 2,862 -16%
Total communications 123,992 +27%

Out-of-mandate issues

Each year some customers raise issues that we are unable to accept because they fall outside our mandate. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) sets our mandate and reviews it from time to time.

The complaints that we are authorized to accept and examples of services and subjects that fall outside our mandate are set out in our Procedural Code. When we receive complaints outside our mandate, such as issues of pricing, infrastructure, and privacy, we notify the customer and service provider. We then refer the customer to a more appropriate organization or complaint-handling body.

Procedural Code Section 3

In a year marked by a nearly 40% increase in overall complaint volumes, there was an 18% year-over-year decrease in complaints that fell outside our mandate (from 5,708 last year to 4,660). This is likely due to the improved upfront guidance within our new online complaint form. Launched in May 2023, the form provides clear information about the issues that fall outside our mandate. Customers are therefore aware of these issues before they submit a complaint.

Table 10.2: Procedural Code Section 3
Issue Number
Out-of-scope telecom issues
Internet applications and content, s. 3.1(a)(i) 62
Infrastructure
s. 3.1(c)(vi) rights of way, s. 3.1(c)(vii) plant, poles, towers, s. 3.1(c)(iv) networking services		 661
Customer equipment and wiring
s. 3.1(c)(i) customer-owned equipment, s. 3.1(c)(ii) inside wiring		 405
Regulated services
s. 3.1(a)(ii) emergency services, s. 3.1(a)(iii) payphones, s. 3.1.(a)(vi) 900/976 calls		 5
Telemarketing and unsolicited spam, s. 3.1.(a)(v) 181
Phone or internet scams 207
Other
s. 3.1(a)(iv) Yellow Pages or business directories		 27
Out-of-scope broadcasting issues
Content
s. 3.1(b)(i) digital media broadcasting undertaking services, s. 3.1(b)(ii) interactive TVSP services and applications, s. 3.1(b)(iii) broadcasting content, s. 3.1(b)(iv) journalistic ethics, s. 3.1(b)(vi) simultaneous substitution		 50
TVSP not required to participate in CCTS 282
Other 88
Other out-of-mandate issues
False/misleading advertising, s. 3.1(c)(viii)  639
Aggressive tactics 408
Privacy issues, s. 3.1(c)(ix) 541
Pricing, s. 3.1(c)(v) 868
Security services, s. 3.1(c)(iii) 236
Total for all out-of-mandate issues 4,660

Procedural Code Section 4

Complaints about customer service, operating practices or policies of service providers do not fall within our mandate. However, we track the inquiries we get about these issues.

In 2023-24, these issues decreased by 29%. This is the third year that complaints about customer service, operating practices and policies decreased.

Table 10.3: Procedural Code Section 4: Operating practices and policies
Issue Number
Section 4.1 Customer service
Rude representative 424
Wait times 466
Other – Customer services 1,347
Total 2,237
Section 4.3 General operating practices and policies 2,889
Total 5,126

Procedural Code Section 10

Under our Procedural Code, we have a duty to decline complaints when:

  • The customer has not yet given the service provider a reasonable opportunity to resolve the issues (Section 10.1).
  • The same complaint had been or was being dealt with by another agency with authority to compensate the customer for loss (Section 10.2b).
  • The facts of the complaint relate to events happened more than a year before the complaint was submitted (Section 10.3a).
  • The complaint is about issues that happened more than one year before the service provider joined the CCTS as a Participating Service Provider on or after September 1, 2017 (Section 10.3(b)).

While we must decline such complaints, we track and report on them.

In the past year, complaints for issues that fell under our duty to decline to take action decreased by 83%. This decrease is likely due to the improved upfront guidance in our online complaint form. This form provides clear information about the steps customers must take before we can accept their complaint.

Table 10.4: Procedural Code Section 10: Duty to decline to take action
Issue Number
Section 10.1 PSP not offered opportunity to resolve 163
Section 10.2(b) matter previously or currently with another agency 29
Section 10.3(a) facts transpired over one year ago 317
Section 10.3(b) facts arose prior to PSP effective date 7
Total 516

Out-of-mandate accessibility issues

Most complaints about a service provider’s failure to accommodate a customer’s accessibility requests are out of our mandate for the CCTS.

At the request of the CRTC and members of the accessibility community, we track when customers raise out-of-mandate accessibility issues about their service providers. We also refer these issues to the CRTC, which may have the authority to address them.

Table 10.5: Out-of-mandate accessibility issues

Issue Number
Customer Service – indifferent to customer’s disability 160
Accessibility-related accommodation issue, e.g. VRS, MRS, closed captioning or described video not available, accessible handset not offered, store accessibility issues, refused to provide Accessibility Plan 102
Policies and procedures, e.g. do not include accessibility information or accessibility policy or practice not honoured 79
Total 341

The CRTC codes that we administer contain some accessibility-related requirements. These are within our mandate. The Wireless, Television Service Provider and Internet Codes require two kinds of accommodations:

  • an extended trial period for individuals with disabilities
  • contracts and related documents provided in an accessible format upon request.

For more information, see Reporting on CRTC Consumer Protection Codes of Conduct.

Analysis of closed complaints

Our operational statistics show that we closed 1,508 complaints in 2023-24. The following table breaks down the reasons for closing those complaints and refers to the relevant sections of the Procedural Code.

Table 10.6: Complaints closed by reason for closure
Complaint Issues % of all closed complaints
Closed as duplicate 200 13.3%
Customer withdrew complaint 301 20.0%
Out-of-mandate after further information obtained 28 1.3%
Section 9.1(b) Customer is not authorized to file complaint 4 0.3%
Section 9.1(c) Complaint more appropriately handled by another agency 17 1.1%
Section 9.1(d) Further investigation not warranted 4 0.3%
Section 9.1(e) Customer not cooperative 918 60.9%
Section 10.1 Service provider not offered opportunity to resolve 2 0.1%
Section 10.2(b) Matter previously or currently with another agency 2 0.1%
Section 10.3(a) Complaint filed outside time limits 29 1.9%
Section 10.3(b) Facts arose prior to effective date 3 0.2%
Total 1,508 100%

We close complaints under section 9.1(e) of our Procedural Code when a customer does not cooperate with our efforts to process and investigate the complaint. For example, we may close a complaint if the customer does not respond to our inquiries, provide required information, or refuses to engage with their service provider during the 20-day Initial Referral stage. We make several attempts to engage a customer to cooperate before closing a complaint.

Small business customer complaints

We can help small business customers whose monthly bill for all telecommunications services is normally under $2,500.

In 2023-24, we concluded 1,336 complaints from small business customers, an increase of 57% from last year. This represents 7% of all concluded complaints in 2023-24.

Those 1,336 concluded complaints from small business customers contained 2,842 issues. This represents a 53% increase in the number of issues from last year.

When we report our operational statistics, we include the data for all the complaints we handled during the year. However, not all complaints are the same. Complaints from small business customers often differ significantly from those of individual consumers. The following tables highlight the differences.

Billing issues are now the most-raised issue, overtaking contract disputes. In previous years, contract disputes were the most-raised issue by small business customers. In fact, contract disputes had consistently been the top issue since we began reporting the breakdown of individual consumers versus small business complaints in 2014-15. Billing issues now make up over 38% of all issues raised by small business customers, up from 29% proportionally last year.

Table 10.7: Small business complaint subjects vs. individual customers complaint subjects
Issue category Small business customers Individual customers
Billing 38.4% 45.0%
Contract dispute 31.1% 23.3%
Service delivery 27.7% 28.0%
Credit management 2.8% 3.6%
Total 100% 100%
Table 10.8: Small business complaint service types vs. individual customer complaint service types
Service type Small business customers Individual customers
Wireless 42.3% 52.6%
Internet 33.0% 28.2%
Home Phone/Local Exchange/VOIP Services 23.4% 6.8%
Long Distance 1.2% 0.6%

Wireless services remain the most raised issues by small business customers; 42% of their issues are about wireless services.

Internet issues represent 33% of issues raised by small business customers and are disproportionately raised by small business customers compared to the 28% of internet issues raised by the individual customers.

Table 10.9: Top 10 small business complaint issues
Issue Small business customers Individual customers
Disclosure issues 14.4% 13.1%
Incorrect charge for monthly price plan 14.0% 14.6%
Quality of service 8.4% 8.7%
Credit or refund not received 7.6% 9.6%
Termination fee 7.3% 2.5%
Repair issues and appointments 4.0% 4.6%
Regular price increase of monthly price plans 4.0% 4.7%
Complete loss of service 3.8% 4.2%
Changes to the contract 3.7% 4.5%
Unable to cancel 3.1% 2.6%

Compensation analysis

In cases that are resolved and those where we issue an Investigation Finding, customers may receive some form of compensation from their service provider. This compensation can take many forms, including the following:

  • bill credits
  • bill adjustments
  • free or discounted products and services
  • cash payments

We try to record the value of all compensation awarded to customers as a result of the CCTS process. This is challenging because, in many cases, we are not given the details of the resolution reached between the customer and the service provider. This happens mainly when cases are resolved at the Initial Referral stage.

From the information available to us, the total compensation awarded in 2023-24 was $3,817,736.43.

Table 10.10: Number of complaints in which compensation was awarded
Compensation range Number of complaints Percentage
less than $100 3,774 33.8%
$100 – $499 5,607 50.3%
$500 – $999 1,171 10.5%
$1,000 – $4,999 560 5.0%
$5,000 or more 43 0.4%
Total 11,155 100%

Performance standards

Each year, we set a goal to provide great service to customers, and we track our performance across various benchmarks. The following tables show how our performance this year compares to those benchmark targets.

This year, we updated our complaint-handling performance standards to reflect the changes we made to our process on May 23, 2023.

We are pleased to have met our performance targets for the contact centre and most complaint-handling standards this past year. This year, the CCTS received an unanticipated 38% surge in accepted complaints. As a result of process and technology changes introduced in May 2023, we were able to assess and accept complaints more quickly, leading to faster resolutions in most cases. However, our performance levels during the later stages of the complaint process, such as Conciliation and Investigation, fell well below our targets. We have since refined our processes and increased our capacity to boost efficiency and productivity in these stages. We expect to meet our complaint-handling performance targets in 2024-25.

Contact Centre

Table 10.11: Contact Centre performance standards
Process 2023‑24 Target
Answer phone calls within 120 seconds 80.1% 80%
Process written communications within five business days 80.2% 80%

Complaint handling

Table 10.12: Complaint handling performance standards
Process 2023‑24 Target
Assess complaints to determine if they meet eligibility criteria within three business days 84.1% 80%
Complaints concluded across all stages within 60 days 89.4% 80%
Complaints concluded at Initial Referral stage within 30 days of acceptance 93.9% 80%
Proportion of complaints concluded at Initial Referral stage – 80.9%
Complaints concluded at Conciliation stage within 60 days of referral to Conciliation 2.1% 80%
Proportion of complaints concluded at Conciliation stage – 13.0%
Complaints concluded at Investigation stage within 90 days of referral to Investigation 37.7% 80%
Proportion of complaints concluded at Investigation stage – 5.9%

Regional analysis

We receive complaints from customers across Canada. The map below shows the percentage of accepted complaints submitted by residents in each province and territory across Canada.

Table 10.13: Complaints accepted by province/territory
Province Complaints Population*
Alberta 2,159 10.7% 4,842,523 11.8%
British Columbia 3,338 16.6% 5,666,888 13.8%
Manitoba 464 2.3% 1,485,955 3.6%
New Brunswick 377 1.9% 849,168 2.1%
Newfoundland and Labrador 190 0.9% 543,141 1.3%
Northwest Territories 11 0.1% 44,686 0.1%
Nova Scotia 442 2.2% 1,071,498 2.6%
Nunavut 3 0.0% 40,851 0.1%
Ontario 9,658 47.9% 16,033,583 39.1%
Prince Edward Island 66 0.3% 177,318 0.4%
Quebec 3,248 16.1% 9,003,338 21.9%
Saskatchewan 182 0.9% 1,233,068 3.0%
Yukon 9 0.1% 46,353 0.1%
Total 20,147 100% 41,038,370 100%

* Canada, Statistics Canada, Table 17-10-0009-01 (formerly, CANSIM 051-0005)

Governance

Annual Report

August 1, 2023 – July 31, 2024

Board of Directors

Our Board is composed of seven directors who are elected to a three-year term:

  • Four independent directors, two of whom are appointed by Canadian consumer advocacy groups.
  • Three industry directors, one from each of the following groups:
    • the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs)
    • the cable companies, and
    • the other Participating Service Providers (PSPs).

Independent Directors

Catherine Aczel Boivie, PhD, ICD.D (Board Chair, appointed October of 2016)

Patricia Kiley, CPA, CA, ICD.D

Independent Directors: Consumer Group appointees

Geneviève Saumier, B.C.L., LL.B, PhD

Catherine Middleton, MBA, PhD, ICD.D

Industry Directors: ILECs

Ruby Barber, LL.B

Industry Directors: Cable companies

Leonard D. Eichel, BASc, MFA

Industry Directors: Other PSPs

Geoff White, JD, MBA, BCL (Oxon)

For up-to-date biographies, visit our Board of Directors page on our website.

Board changes

Board Chair Catherine Aczel Boivie PhD, ICD.D retired in October 2024 after eight years of service. The Board of Directors elected Patricia Kiley, CPA, CA, ICD.D as the new Chair. In October 2024, Michel Tremblay, MBA, C.Dir., joined the Board as an Independent Director.

In October 2023, Dean Shaikh, LL.B, LL.M retired from the Board as Industry Director representing the cable companies. Leonard D. Eichel, BASc, MFA joined the Board to represent the cable companies.

In October 2024, Geoff White, JD, MBA, ICD.D, BCL (Oxon) retired as Industry Director representing the Other PSPs. Todd Hofley, MA, MFA joined the Board to represent the other PSPs.

Board attendance

Committees and working groups: membership and meetings

The Board has the following committees and working groups, with membership and meeting dates in 2023-24 as follows.

 

Audit Committee
Geneviève Saumier (Chair), Leonard D. Eichel (starting Oct 2023), Patricia Kiley, Ruby Barber (until Oct 2023)

2023 Meetings 2024 Meetings
  • August 23
  • October 13
  • December 20
  • March 14
  • March 28
  • May 31

Corporate Governance Committee
Catherine Aczel Boivie (Chair until Oct 2023), Patricia Kiley (Chair after Oct 2023), Catherine Middleton, Dean Shaikh (until Oct 2023), Ruby Barber (after Oct 2023)

2023 Meetings 2024 Meetings
  • August 25 (Shaikh absent)
  • October 20 (Shaikh absent)
  • December 11
  • January 22
  • April 11
  • May 27

Independent Directors Committee
Catherine Aczel Boivie (Chair), Catherine Middleton, Geneviève Saumier, Patricia Kiley

2023 Meetings 2024 Meetings
  • September 14
  • October 13
  • January 18
  • February 20
  • February 23
  • March 28
  • June 7

Budget Working Group
Geneviève Saumier, Ruby Barber

2023 Meetings 2024 Meetings
  • none
  • May 17
  • May 22
  • May 24 (Barber absent)

Strategic Planning Working Group (new)
Catherine Middleton (Chair), Catherine Aczel Boivie, Geoff White, Patricia Kiley, Leonard Eichel

2023 Meetings 2024 Meetings
  • September 22
  • November 9
  • January 18
  • January 19
  • February 22
  • March 1
  • March 28 (White absent)

Service Delivery Working Group
Catherine Middleton (Chair), Geoff White, Ruby Barber
Meeting: September 18, 2023

CCTS financials

See Appendix C for our audited financial statements for the fiscal year 2023-24.

The CCTS is a not-for-profit corporation originally incorporated under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act. In January 2014, the CCTS was continued under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act.

The CCTS is funded entirely by its Participating Service Providers (PSPs), based on a formula approved by the CCTS’ Members. The service is free for customers who file a complaint.

Large PSPs pay a fee based on the proportion of their revenues relative to the total revenues of all the large service providers. Small PSPs pay a nominal annual fee. All providers pay a fee for each of their customer complaints that we conclude during the fiscal year. Other sources of revenue are bank interest and sign-up fees charged to new providers (until May 2023, when the CCTS ceased charging the sign-up fee).

In fiscal year 2023-24, our expenses slightly exceeded revenues due to a higher than anticipated number of complaints. This required unbudgeted expenses to increase our capacity to handle complaints. We will absorb this deficit in the CCTS’ fiscal year budget for 2024-25.

Appendices

Annual Report

August 1, 2023 – July 31, 2024

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider

Appendix B – Detailed analysis of issues raised in complaints

Appendix C – Financial statements

Appendix D – Issue classification system 2023-2024

Glossary

Annual Report

August 1, 2023 – July 31, 2024

Definitions

This section provides definitions for terms we use in this report. To find out more about our complaint process, visit Complaint resolution process explained on our website.


Accepted complaint

An accepted complaint is a complaint by a customer that falls within our mandate.


Alleged breach

An alleged breach is recorded when one or both of the following occur:

  • A customer reports that a service provider has breached a particular section of a CRTC
  • We identify a possible breach of the CRTC code when we assess the customer’s complaint.

A breach remains an alleged breach until we confirm it through investigation. There may be more than one alleged breach in a complaint. A breach happens when a service provider fails to follow the rules set out in the applicable CRTC Codes of Conduct:

  • Internet Code
  • Wireless Code
  • Television Service Provider Code
  • Deposit and Disconnection Code

Assessment

During an assessment, we review the complaint and information the customer provided to determine if we can accept the complaint.


Case Review

A customer or service provider may request a Case Review under the two following conditions:

  • They believe we made an error of fact or interpretation; and,
  • They believe our error affected the Investigation Findings.

If it appears more likely than not that we made such an error, we conduct a Case Review. Then, we issue a confirmed or amended version of the Investigation Findings.


Closed complaint

A closed complaint is one we have accepted but closed without resolving or investigating the issues. The following are the two most common situations where we close complaints:

  • The customer withdrew their complaint.
  • The customer failed to communicate with us or cooperate with our process.

Code of conduct

We use four mandatory CRTC Codes of Conduct to assess the conduct of service providers:


Conciliation

A complaint moves to Conciliation under these two conditions:

  • It remains unresolved after Initial Referral.
  • The service provider has supplied the required information and documentation about its response to the complaint.

Conciliation is informal. We work with the customer and the service provider to explore ways to resolve the complaint without going through the time and expense of a full investigation.


Concluded complaint

A complaint is concluded when it is resolved, we close it, or when we have issued Investigation Findings.


Confirmed breach

A confirmed breach is an alleged breach of a CRTC code that we confirmed through our investigation. A breach happens when a service provider fails to follow one of four codes of conduct issued by the CRTC:

  • Internet Code
  • Wireless Code
  • Television Service Provider Code
  • Deposit and Disconnection Code

Customer not cooperative

A customer is considered not cooperative if they fail to do one or both of the following:

  • respond to our attempts to communicate with them
  • communicate with the service provider during the Initial Referral stage of our process

If, after several attempts, we cannot get the customer to cooperate, we will close the complaint.


Initial Referral

When we accept a complaint, it goes to the Initial Referral stage. At this point, we refer the complaint back to the service provider to give it another opportunity to resolve the complaint with the customer. The customer and the service provider have 20 days to resolve the issue at Initial Referral.


Investigation

During the Investigation, we analyze the information the service provider and the customer supplied. We want to know if the service provider acted appropriately, and reasonably met its obligations to the customer as set out in its terms of service, contracts, invoices, call notes, recordings, etc.


Investigation Findings

We issue written Investigation Findings whenever we cannot resolve a complaint. An Investigation Findings Report covers our analysis of the facts based on the information and evidence both the customer and the service provider have supplied. The Investigation Findings Report explains our assessment of whether the service provider met its obligations towards the customer and, if not, what remedies are required to fix the issue. We have the authority to require the service provider to fix the problem by doing one or more of the following:

  • explain or apologize for the problem
  • correct the problem, such as correct a billing error
  • reconnect a service
  • stop collections activity
  • reimburse the customer for proven financial losses to a maximum of $5,000

Issue

An issue is a specific concern a customer raises in a complaint. A complaint can contain more than one issue. For example, a customer complains that their bill contains an error and that the unpaid balance resulted in a service disconnection. This is one complaint with two separate issues.


No breach

After we investigate an alleged breach, we conclude there is no breach if we find that the service provider did not violate any CRTC code provision.


Out-of-mandate

Certain complaints fall outside our mandate. These include complaints about privacy, telemarketing calls, and advertising. Since they are out-of-mandate, we cannot accept them.


Resolved

A complaint is resolved when both the customer and the service provider agree to the solution.

For best results, print using Google Chrome

Français