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.
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.
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.
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).
| Large facilities-based Internet Service Providers | Related Internet brands and affiliates |
|---|---|
| Bell Canada |
|
| Cogeco Connexion Inc. (Ontario and Quebec) |
|
| Eastlink |
|
| Rogers |
|
| Sasktel | |
| TELUS |
|
| Videotron Ltd. |
|
| Xplore |
|
* 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.