2023 Compliance Report Cards

Compliance with the CCTS’ Public Awareness Plan

2023 Compliance Report Cards

  Download one page report card

Canadians need to be aware of or be able to easily find out about the CCTS when they need help in resolving disputes with their service providers. We take seriously the continuing need to ensure public awareness of the services that we provide.

Participating Service Providers (PSPs) must comply with Developing Public Awareness of the CCTS (the Public Awareness Plan) and promote awareness about the CCTS to their customers.

To ensure PSP compliance, the CCTS conducts a review each year to:

  • assess compliance and identify any instances of non-compliance,
  • engage with PSPs that have non-compliance issues to ensure that issues are addressed in a timely manner, and,
  • take enforcement action against PSPs that do not comply.

This report card highlights our findings about PSP compliance with the Public Awareness Plan from January 1 to December 31, 2023.

Requirements

The Public Awareness Plan requires PSPs to inform their residential and small business customers about the CCTS in English and French in the following:

Our approach

Our goal is to encourage compliance through educating and engaging PSPs.

The CCTS annually audits:

  • PSP websites: a review of all PSPs that are audited to ensure that the website has all of the required CCTS information available for customers.
  • PSP documentation: a review of PSP invoices, white pages, and internal documents about the PSP’s complaint-handling process for the 25 PSPs that generated the most CCTS complaints.

The CCTS shares its audit results for each audited PSP with the PSP. When we find issues of non-compliance, we contact the PSP and provide an explanation, requesting the PSP to identify how and when it will come into compliance. Our Compliance team works with PSPs until all identified issues have been resolved and we publicly identify any service providers who refuse to comply. Additionally, starting in 2023, we provide an annual reminder to all PSPs about their obligations under the Public Awareness Plan.

 

PSP websites

In 2023, the CCTS audited 51 PSPs[1] to ensure their customers have access to the required website information and found 15 out of 51 (29%) audited PSPs did not have any information about the CCTS on their websites. This is consistent with the results from the last three years (28 – 32% compliance). The providers without information about the CCTS on their website in 2023 were primarily small PSPs. We collaborated extensively with those providers and as a result, 10 out of 15 small PSPs have now added the required information.

Although most audited PSPs had information about the CCTS on their website prior to being audited, many of the issues we found were about how and where the CCTS information was presented. Overall audit results are in the below.

 

 

Trends Observed

The CCTS highlights some of the trends seen in the past few years of our Compliance Program.

Trend 1: PSPs are more compliant with website requirements

Overall, there is an increase in PSP compliance with the website requirements. In 2019, only 14% of the audited PSPs were fully compliant and in 2023, 35% of the audited PSPs were fully compliant.

Figure 1.1: PSPs compliance with website requirements – year over year

Trend 2: The majority of PSP websites did not return search results for CCTS

In 2023, 15 out of 29 PSP websites (52%) that had a search function did not return results with CCTS information when searching for all keywords related to “complaints” and “CCTS”. In 2022 it was 55% and in 2021, it was more than 70%. While PSPs have become more compliant with the search requirement over the past couple years, this will be an important area for our compliance efforts to focus on.

The search function on a PSP website is an important tool customers use to find information. PSPs must ensure that using the search function on their websites result in providing the required CCTS information to customers on residential, small business, French and English websites.  If search results do not display CCTS on all of a PSP’s websites, then the CCTS considers the PSP as non-compliant.  The CCTS has reminded PSPs each year in our Compliance Monitoring Report about the search function requirement and this year we notified all PSPs they should check their websites to ensure compliance and that we would name those PSPs who were repeatedly non-compliant.  Despite this messaging, we continue to see non-compliance with the search function requirement.

In the past 4 out of 5 years, Rogers and TELUS were non-compliant with the website search function requirement.  The main issue for both PSPs was that searching their business websites did not result in the required CCTS information. Another issue has been missing key words on their French and English residential websites.  Overall, this is concerning given that Rogers and TELUS have been audited for compliance with the Public Awareness Plan since 2017 and they are well aware of this requirement.

PSPs can ensure compliance with the search function requirement by implementing an internal control processes for website updates. Given the limited improvement and significant recurrence, we urge all PSPs to implement internal processes and regular checks to ensure that website updates do not change the search function.

Trend 3: Almost half of the PSP complaint websites weren’t easy to find or clearly labelled

The CCTS information on 23 out of 51 PSP complaint websites (45%) was either not easy to find or not clearly labelled.  Many of the non-compliant PSPs were smaller service providers (20 out of 23) who buried the CCTS information somewhere on their website where customers would not likely find the information, for example, in the fine print of their privacy policy or terms of service. Over the years, we’ve provided guidance to all PSPs and given examples of how to clearly label the complaint page and make it easy for customers to find information about the CCTS.  We encourage all PSPs to carefully review the CCTS’ guidance and check that its websites adhering to those guidelines.

Top 25 PSPs documentation

In 2023, the CCTS audited the documentation requirements which included invoices, white pages and internal complaint-handling process of the 25 PSPs that generated the most complaints, to determine whether they complied with their obligations under the Public Awareness Plan. Only 8% of these PSPs were non-compliant with the documentation requirements, while most of the PSPs (92%) were fully compliant and required no changes. This is a slight improvement compared to 2022, where 10% of the PSPs were non-compliant and a significant improvement compared to 2021, where 36% of PSPs were non-compliant.

Given this, the CCTS finds there is no concerning trend based on our audits of the PSP documentation.

Conclusion

Ensuring PSPs are compliant with the CCTS’ public awareness requirements is fundamental for customers to be able to easily find out how they can get help with unresolved telecommunications and television issues. The CCTS has annually checked PSP compliance with this requirement and will continue to engage with more PSPs to ensure they fulfill their responsibilities to promote awareness of the CCTS.

Appendix: Developing Public Awareness of CCTS

Compliance with the Procedural Code

2023 Compliance Report Cards

  Download one page report card

Introduction

The Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (CCTS) transitioned to a new complaints system and process in May 2023. While the CCTS updated its process and technology, the Participating Service Provider (PSP) requirements largely stayed the same. We’ve mapped out the rules PSPs need to follow in our complaints process below.

Figure 2.1: How PSPs need to comply with CCTS complaints process

PSPs must comply with the CCTS’ Procedural Code

All PSPs need to comply with the complaint-handling process outlined in the CCTS’ Procedural Code. PSP compliance with these requirements is integral to the CCTS’ ability to carry out our role effectively and efficiently.

This report card highlights some observations regarding PSP compliance with the Procedural Code requirements from January 1 – December 31, 2023.

Our approach

Our goal is to promote PSP compliance with the Procedural Code requirements by working with PSPs throughout the complaints process. When PSPs fail to comply with these requirements, it impacts their customers and the effectiveness and efficiency of the CCTS complaint process.  If a PSP:

  • does not implement a complaint resolution, it deprives the customer of their right to recourse;
  • charges the customer fees for filing a complaint with the CCTS, it punishes the customer for exercising their right to recourse.
  • does not cooperate with a CCTS’ investigation, or submits incomplete or late responses to the CCTS, the CCTS’ complaint-handling process takes more time.

The CCTS monitors PSPs to ensure that they comply with the complaints process.  This report highlights some of the PSPs’ non-compliance issues we observed in 2023. As PSPs are still getting used to the new process introduced in May 2023, this year’s report focuses on high-level observations on major issues of concern only and signals areas we will monitor closely going forward.

Observations of Procedural Code non-compliance

In 2023, the CCTS observed the following issues regarding PSP compliance with complaints handling requirements of the Procedural Code:

  • Issue 1: Some PSPs failed to implement resolutions and Investigation Findings
  • Issue 2: PSPs must not threaten customers after filing a CCTS complaint nor ask them to withdraw their complaint ­­­­

Issue 1: Some PSPs failed to implement resolutions and Investigation Findings

Mutually accepted resolutions[2] and Investigation Findings[3] are binding on PSPs and must be implemented.  When a PSP does not implement a resolution or Investigation Finding, the CCTS considers it as major non-compliance with the Procedural Code because the PSP has deprived their customer of the remedy to which they are entitled such as processing a credit or refund or correcting the customer’s issue (e.g. fixing a customer’s bill). When customers inform us and the CCTS determines that the PSP did not fulfill its obligation, the Compliance team works swiftly with the PSP to ensure implementation.

In 2023, the CCTS identified 11 confirmed breaches of this Procedural Code requirement as identified below. In 9 out of 11 cases,[4] the PSP rectified the matter and the customers confirmed they received their remedy from the process, after engagement with the CCTS’ compliance team.  There were 2 PSPs[5] that were unable to rectify their non-compliance because they advised us they were going out of business. The CCTS terminated their participation and advised the customers to consider alternative recourse.

 

PSPs must implement resolutions and Investigation Findings

Case Summary

COMPLIANCE CASE SUMMARY #1: PSP refused to implement the remedy in the CCTS’ Investigation Findings

An Internet customer complained about intermittent services she was getting from her PSP.  The customer claimed the Internet frequently dropped, she could not use the service and the PSP did nothing to resolve the issues.  When the CCTS investigated the complaint, the PSP was uncooperative. The Compliance team engaged the PSP and reminded them of their obligation to provide all requested documents and information to the CCTS. The CCTS later issued the Investigation Findings based on the evidence available and determined that the PSP did not reasonably address the customer’s issues, nor did it demonstrate that the customer used the Internet service she paid for.  Consequently, the CCTS concluded that the PSP needed to refund the customer for twelve months of service fees, which totalled $425.60.  After the CCTS issued the Investigation Findings, the PSP refused to refund the customer. The Compliance team engaged the PSP, educated them about the CCTS process and explained potential consequences if it refused to refund the customer. The PSP decided to comply and issued the refund cheque to the customer.

Case Summary

COMPLIANCE CASE SUMMARY #2: PSP delayed refund resolution and improperly reduced agreed-upon refund amount

Another Internet customer complained about poor quality of service from his service provider.  The PSP and customer mutually agreed to resolve the complaint as the PSP would send a refund cheque to the customer for $480 plus tax, (six months’ worth of services). Weeks after the complaint’s conclusion, the customer informed the CCTS that they did not receive the refund cheque. The Compliance team contacted the PSP who agreed to send the refund cheque.  The customer followed up again and advised that the PSP sent a refund cheque, but it was for the incorrect amount.  The Compliance team spoke with the PSP again who explained they withheld a portion of the refund because the customer did not return their equipment. We educated the PSP that the resolution it agreed to with the customer did not include this condition and that it was required to refund the customer regardless of whether the equipment was returned.  The PSP understood and complied, refunding the customer the entire amount that was agreed to in the resolution. The customer confirmed receipt of the refund cheque and returned the PSP’s equipment.

Issue 2: PSPs must not threaten customers after filing a CCTS complaint nor ask them to withdraw their complaint

When a customer complains to the CCTS:

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

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

PSPs must not ask customers to withdraw their complaint at the CCTS

When a PSP engages in this behaviour, the PSP is not participating in good faith as it is trying to circumvent the requirement to respond to complaints.  If the customer and PSP agree to resolve a complaint, the PSP must advise the CCTS that the complaint is resolved.  If the PSP tells the customer to withdraw that complaint, then the customer will not be able to follow up and request the CCTS to ensure the resolution is implemented because the complaint was withdrawn from our process (i.e. not resolved within our process).  The CCTS informs the customer that if a complaint is withdrawn, then the CCTS will likely be unable to help ensure that the PSP implements the resolution it promised the customer as the enticement for withdrawing the complaint.

In 2023, the CCTS confirmed in 1 complaint that a PSP disconnected the customer because of their CCTS complaint. The PSP sent the customer a notice of service disconnection after the customer filed a complaint.  The Compliance team educated the PSP that it should not engage in this type of behaviour. The PSP explained to us it did not know it wasn’t allowed to do this and that it never intended to punish the customer for filing a CCTS complaint and it would not do this again in the future.

Another newly signed-up PSP asked their customer to withdraw the complaint at the CCTS.  The Compliance team engaged the PSP who informed us they did not know how to use the CCTS process and that it was not supposed to ask the customer to withdraw the complaint.  We informed the PSP of what they should do, and they understood not to engage in this behaviour moving forward.

Often, when we engage PSPs and explain the rules around the complaints process, the PSP is cooperative and complies quickly. We appreciate working with PSPs who want to do the right thing and do what we can to help PSPs better understand the CCTS complaint process.

Monitoring PSP compliance with the new complaint-handling process

For the CCTS to resolve complaints effectively and efficiently, we need PSPs to act responsibly and comply with the CCTS complaints processes. While the compliance requirements remain the same, the updated complaint-handling processes and complaint-handling technology implemented in 2023 were a significant change for the CCTS and PSPs. As we collectively adjust to the new process and tools, we will continue to monitor PSP compliance with the rules and report on compliance results next year. In the meantime, the CCTS provides PSPs with a checklist to ensure compliance with the complaint handling rules.

Conclusion

The CCTS is monitoring PSP compliance with the updated complaints handling process.  When PSPs comply with the rules and cooperate in good faith in the CCTS’ processes, complaints are handled more efficiently and effectively, also contributing to customer satisfaction. Ultimately, it is within the interest of all parties – customers, PSPs and the CCTS – to ensure that complaints are handled effectively and efficiently.

Checklist: Compliance with the CCTS Procedural Code

PSPs must implement resolutions and Investigation Findings

Mutually accepted resolutions and Investigation Findings are binding on PSPs and must be implemented. When a PSP does not implement a resolution or Investigation Finding, the CCTS considers it as major non-compliance with the Procedural Code because the PSP has deprived their customer of the remedy such as processing a credit or refund or correcting the customer’s issue (e.g. service reconnection or credit reporting).  The CCTS treats these complaints with high priority and takes action right away.

PSPs must not ask customers to withdraw their complaint at the CCTS

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

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

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

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

PSPs must follow the rules when objecting to complaints

The CCTS Procedural Code authorizes the CCTS to accept telecom and television-related complaints, with certain exceptions. PSPs can object to the CCTS accepting a customer complaint if they believe that the subject of the complaint falls into one of these exceptions. The only change made to the rules on how PSPs can object to complaints is that objections must be filed with the CCTS within 10 days of the CCTS informing the PSP that it has accepted the complaint (instead of 15 days in the previous process).  The PSP must explain the reason for its objection and provide supporting documentation so that the CCTS can assess the merits of the objection. If PSPs object to complaints and do not comply with the objection rules, we consider it a breach of the Procedural Code.  We identify objection breaches when a PSP submits a late objection, submits an objection without explanation or supporting evidence, or the PSP objects to a complaint on an improper basis such as the merit of the customer’s complaint itself. When a PSP does not comply with the objection rules, it unnecessarily delays the complaints handling process and leads to the CCTS ineffectively using its resources.  Each year we monitor these breaches, and we will continue to monitor whether PSPs are improperly using the objections process.

PSPs must confirm with the customer that a complaint is resolved

If a PSP and customer mutually agree to resolve a complaint at initial referral, then the PSP must provide a written response to the CCTS and to the customer indicating the complaint is resolved. After a PSP tells the CCTS that a complaint is resolved, the customer has twenty days to dispute the response submitted by the PSP. PSPs should only inform us that a complaint is resolved when the PSP has confirmed with the customer that it has reached a mutually accepted resolution, or when it provides the full resolution that the customer requested.

PSPs must respond to and provide required information about an unresolved complaint

If a PSP and customer cannot agree to a resolution at initial referral, the PSP is required to provide a written response to the CCTS and indicate that the complaint remains “unresolved”.

  • When PSPs provide timely information and documents, the CCTS may review the complaint at the Conciliation stage where we may be able to help conclude complaints earlier in the process, increasing effectiveness and cost efficiency of the CCTS’ services.
  • When PSPs do not provide documentation and/or do not respond at all, the CCTS may proceed directly to an investigation to determine whether the provider met its obligations. The CCTS will seek information from the PSP, and Investigation Findings are issued.

We expect more PSPs will provide the CCTS with all relevant documents with their unresolved response in the future in order to get the full benefit of the CCTS’ conciliation processes.

PSPs must provide all requested documentation at Investigations and need to do so in a timely manner

When the CCTS investigates a complaint at Investigations, the CCTS requires PSPs to provide requested documents and information in a timely manner.  It is crucial that PSPs provide this information before concluding its Investigation Findings because this information will not be taken into consideration afterwards.  When PSPs fail to provide the requested documents or do not respond in a timely manner, it:

  • delays the investigation of a complaint;
  • may result in adverse findings against the PSP and whether it met its obligations to the customer.

In other words, it is imperative for PSPs to comply with this requirement in order to avoid unnecessary delays and be afforded the opportunity to provide its “side of the story” to the CCTS during the complaints process.

PSPs must suspend the collections activity on disputed charges

When a customer submits a complaint, PSPs must suspend collections activity for an unpaid charge that the customer is disputing in their complaint until the complaint is resolved or otherwise concluded.  Some examples of the type of collections activity that PSPs should refrain from engaging in, include: reporting the unpaid charge to a credit reporting agency or bureau, contacting the customer to remind them of an unpaid balance which includes the disputed amount, contacting the customer and threatening to suspend service or initiate collections activity if an unpaid balance remains unpaid. When PSPs do not comply with this requirement, the CCTS will intervene and ask the PSP to take steps to stop further collections activity against the customer.

Compliance with Financial Requirements

2023 Compliance Report Cards

  Download one page report card

Introduction

The CCTS is an independent organization that offers its services to Canadians at no cost to customers and is funded on a cost-recovery basis by the Participating Service Providers (PSPs).  To ensure that the CCTS can provide customers with free and effective complaint resolution services, the CCTS requires PSPs to comply with two financial requirements:

When PSPs do not comply, it creates additional work for the CCTS, adds costs which are borne by all the other PSPs, and needlessly consumes CCTS resources.

Our approach

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

Disclosure of financial information

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

In 2023, 85 out of 300 service providers did not comply with the requirement to provide us with financial information. See Appendix A for the full list of non-compliant PSPs.

It is a particularly challenging annual endeavour to obtain financial information from all PSPs, especially from smaller service providers.  Nevertheless, most PSPs have given this information to us each year. Between 2018 and 2023, PSPs’ rate of response is 74%.

Disclosure of financial information

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

In 2023, 85 out of 300 service providers did not comply with the requirement to provide us with financial information. See Appendix A for the full list of non-compliant PSPs.

It is a particularly challenging annual endeavour to obtain financial information from all PSPs, especially from smaller service providers.  Nevertheless, most PSPs have given this information to us each year. Between 2018 and 2023, PSPs’ rate of response is 74%.

Payment of the CCTS fees

The CCTS bills PSPs quarterly, and PSPs must pay their fees promptly. We remind PSPs of their payment obligations when they are past due and identify how to comply with their participation requirement. As of December 31, 2023, 30 service providers owed fees that qualify for collection activity, as listed in Appendix B. Since the CCTS is a not-for-profit which recovers its costs from all PSPs, non-payment of fees by some providers means that their non-payment needs to be unfairly shouldered by all other PSPs.

Appendix A. Participating Service Providers that failed to provide the required financial information

  • 0714773 BC Ltd. (Unmetered, Unmetered Clearing House)
  • 10601152 Canada Inc. (Securenet Information Services Inc.)
  • 1207901 Ontario Ltd. (Toronto Telecom)
  • 1784150 Ontario Inc. (Tekdata Telecom)
  • 1875362 Ontario Inc. (Tikatel)
  • 2343842 Ontario Inc. (Smart Telecom)
  • 3095959 Canada Inc. (BV Communications, Telemart)
  • 353233 Alberta Ltd. (DigitalWeb Internet Services, VM Systems)
  • 4pairless Communications Inc.
  • 7041748 Canada lnc (CiteNet Internet)
  • 9045-2855 Québec Inc. (Digicom Internet sans fil)
  • 9195-5302 Quebec Inc. (ELPC)
  • 9257-8368 Québec Inc. (Mazagan Telecom)
  • Adya Inc.
  • AIC Global Communications Inc.
  • Airnet Wireless Inc.
  • Alanik Technologies
  • AllCore Communications Inc.
  • Canada Relink
  • Canadian Car Club Corporation
  • CaspianWave TSP Inc.
  • Caztel Communications Inc.
  • CDMS Inc.
  • Columbia Wireless Inc.
  • Connex Global Communications Inc.
  • Continuum Online Services Inc.
  • Convergia Networks Inc.
  • Cybernet Communications Ltd
  • DCI Telecom
  • DID Logic Limited
  • EGC Technologie Informatique Inc.
  • E-SatTel.ca Inc.
  • EspaceNet
  • eTor Networks
  • FleetTél Inc.
  • Fongo Inc.
  • Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc.
  • GoCo Technology Limited Partnership
  • GoTo Technologies Canada Ltd.
  • Greater Sudbury Telecommunications Inc.
  • Groupe TransVision Reseau
  • Infosat Communications LP
  • Internet Access Solutions Ltd.
  • iTeraTEL Communications Inc.
  • King George Communications
  • LES.Net (1996) Inc.
  • Linkcom Inc.
  • Maximum ISP Inc.
  • Movita Communications Inc.
  • Multi-Techniques (RDL) Inc.
  • MYBC Datacom Ltd.
  • Niagara Regional Broadband Network
  • Nor-Del Cablevision Limited
  • NWIC Inc.
  • Odynet Inc.
  • Poynt360 Inc.
  • Purple Cow Internet Inc.
  • Quantum Internet Solutions Ltd.
  • Quantum Xpress Ltd.
  • Querizon Inc.
  • Radia Telecom Inc.
  • Rafiki Technologies Inc.
  • Redbox Solutions Limited
  • Schneider’s Computing & Websites Ltd.
  • Simconet Technologies Inc.
  • Spectrum Telecom Group Ltd.
  • Springtel Communications Inc.
  • Switchworks Technologies Inc.
  • Syban Systems Ltd.
  • T.A. Networks Inc.
  • Talkit.ca Inc.
  • Tamaani Internet (Kativik Regional Government)
  • Telesave Communications Ltd.
  • TenTenTel
  • The Internet Centre Canada Inc.
  • The WISP Group Inc.
  • TNEXT Communication Inc.
  • Total Cable Services Inc.
  • Truespeed Internet Services Inc.
  • UpTélé Inc.
  • VerseTEL Inc.
  • Vodalink Telecom Inc.
  • VoIP Much Phone Company Inc
  • Von Der Welt Inc.
  • WiMac Tel Inc.

Appendix B. Service Providers with overdue fees to the CCTS

As of December 31, 2023, the following PSPs had overdue fees of more than $1,000 for 3 months or more:

  • 1207901 Ontario Ltd. (Toronto Telecom)
  • 1784150 Ontario Inc. (Tekdata Telecom)
  • 2332683 Ontario Inc. (Coextro)
  • 2470618 Ontario Inc. (Net Live)
  • 3095959 Canada Inc. (BV Communications/Telemart)
  • 9039-4255 Quebec Inc. (Beauce Sans Fil)
  • 9257-8368 Quebec Inc. (Mazagan Telecom)
  • AIC Global Communications Inc.
  • AllCore Communications Inc.
  • Canadian Car Club Corporation
  • CDTEL
  • Connex Global Communications Inc. (Phonebox)
  • EasyVoice Telecom
  • Fongo Inc.
  • Globalstar Canada Satellite Co.
  • Groupe TransVision Reseau
  • Level 3 Communications Canada Co.
  • MaximumISP Inc. (Max ISP)
  • NetTalk.com Inc.
  • Nobel Canada Telecom Inc.
  • Ooma Inc.
  • PWHR Solutions
  • Quantum Internet Solutions Ltd.
  • Schneiders Computing & Websites Ltd.
  • SpaceX Canada Corp. (Starlink)
  • SpeakOut Wireless, 7-Eleven Inc.
  • Talkit.ca Inc.
  • Tamaani Internet, KRG
  • Telcan Inc.
  • WISP Internet Services Inc.

The CCTS terminated the participation of these 3 service providers for noncompliance: SkyChoice Communications Inc., Maple Call Inc. and InnSys Inc. and they are currently not PSPs. However, these service providers are still required to pay their outstanding CCTS fees which remain unpaid.

Footnotes

  1. This included:

    • The 25 PSPs that generated the most CCTS complaints in the previous year, as listed in the 2022-2023 Annual Report. These PSPs accounted for 95% of all accepted complaints.
    • 5 PSPs identified as non-compliant in 2023. Throughout the year, the Compliance team engages with PSPs for specific non-compliance issues requiring engagement.
    • 21 randomly selected PSPs (previously unaudited). This category ensures that all PSPs, regardless of their size and compliance status, can be reviewed from time to time to determine their compliance with the Public Awareness Plan requirements. Including this year, the CCTS has audited the websites of 209 PSP brands since 2018.

  2. Mutually acceptable resolutions are when the PSP and Customer agree to a specific outcome to resolve a complaint filed with the CCTS.
  3. The CCTS issues Investigation Findings after a complaint is fully investigated. Investigation Findings are a written report of the result of our analysis and assessment of the complaint. We base our Findings on the information and documents the customer and the service provider give to us. These Findings explain whether the service provider met their obligations to the customer. If they did not meet their obligations, the Findings explain what the provider must do to correct the issue – and the provider is required to implement these actions.
  4. 3 complaints with TELUS, 2 complaints with Rogers, 1 complaint with Bell Canada, 1 complaint with Fido, 1 complaint with Surf Media and 1 complaint with Tamaani Internet.
  5. Encore Telecom/Navatalk and Nogard Communications Inc.

For best results, print using Google Chrome

Français