About our data

The statistics in this report reflect the complaints we received, accepted and concluded this fiscal year, from August 1, 2024 to July 31, 2025. The complaints accepted or concluded after July 31, 2025 will be reported in subsequent Annual Reports.

NOTE:  A single complaint may raise more than one issue, so the number of issues is higher than the number of complaints. To ensure accuracy, we audit the data throughout the year. Percentages are rounded for clarity, which means totals in some tables may not add up to 100%.

Complaint statistics

* 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.

Analysis

The overall number of issues increased by 12% compared to last year. Our analysis of complaints found that:

• wireless services once again generated the largest number of issues across all service types, accounting for 51% of all issues
• TV service issues increased by 44% overall, with TV contract dispute issues contributing the most to this increase (up 77% compared to last year)
• billing issues remained the most common issue across all service types
• contract disputes surpassed service delivery issues to become the second most common issue type, increasing by 17% compared to last year

Consult the Topics and trends section of our Annual Report for more details about complaints and issues.

Trend 1: Billing issues, on the rise again, remain a top concern for telecom and TV customers

Incorrect monthly charges and missing credits account for the highest volume of billing issues

Billing issues often arise from unclear communication, which can lead to customer confusion or unmet expectations. Billing continues to make up the largest share of issues across all service types. This year, billing issues account for 46% of issues raised, up from 45% last year.

After a decline in 2022, the volume of billing issues rose by 52% in 2023–24, with a further increase of 16% this year. The 20,108 issues (see Figure 7.1) raised represents the highest number of billing issues reported in the last five years and the second highest ever recorded by the CCTS. The resurgence of billing issues comes at a time when Canadian consumers face increasing cost of living and prices for goods and services. This may help explain why people may be more concerned about any billing discrepancies, and may be paying closer attention to their household spending, including their telecom and TV bills.

Top 25 Participating Service Providers

Together, the Top 25 PSP brands account for 96% (21,210) of all accepted complaints in 2024–25, unchanged year over year. The remaining 4% (884) of complaints accepted were filed about 151 different service providers.

Of note, in this Annual Report, the CCTS has combined complaint data for the Rogers and Shaw brands into a single brand, referred to as “Rogers/Shaw.” All year-over-year data comparisons for Rogers/Shaw are based on combined data for both brands from the previous year. After a company is acquired, its branding can change. This can involve no rebranding (two separate brands), a period of gradual integration of the acquired brand, or the full absorption of an acquired brand into the parent company.

The Rogers acquisition of Shaw officially closed in April 2023 and was the largest telecom acquisition in Canadian history. Following the closure, the Shaw brand was evolved to “Rogers Together With Shaw.” In 2024–25, services offered on Shaw’s website were Rogers-branded services, and in June 2025, the Shaw website was retired, redirecting all products, support, and services to Rogers. For clarity in this report, the CCTS will report data about Rogers and Shaw as “Rogers/Shaw.”

Top 3

The three brands with the highest volume of complaints account for 65% of all complaints accepted by the CCTS in 2024–25. Rogers/Shaw, TELUS, and Bell remain the top three service provider brands based on accepted complaint volume. Rogers/Shaw was the brand with the highest portion of complaints, followed by TELUS and Bell. Notably, TELUS experienced a significant 78% increase in complaints, while Rogers/Shaw and Bell saw increases on par with the 17% increase in complaints across all providers.

Top 10

The 10 brands with the highest volume of complaints account for 89% of all accepted complaints this year. All the service providers in last year’s top 10 stayed on the list, except for Chatr, which moved into the top 10 after a significant 226% increase in complaints.

Fido, Virgin Plus, Videotron (for the second year in a row), and Public Mobile had fewer complaints year over year.

Top 25

The 25 brands with the highest number of accepted complaints together account for 96% of all accepted complaints. A few brands (Fongo Home Phone, EBOX, and VMedia) entered the Top 25 list this year as a result of significant year-over-year increases in accepted complaints. Below is an overview of the 25 brands with the highest number of accepted complaints. The data reflects individual brands, not their ownership groups.

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

* The number of concluded complaints may be higher or lower than the number of accepted complaints in a given year. This occurs because complaints accepted in one reporting year may be concluded in the following year.
† The resolution rate is the percentage of all resolved complaints vs. all concluded complaints (86.1% overall).
‡ The escalation rate is the percentage of all complaints that move to later stages of the CCTS’ process vs. all concluded complaints (21.5% overall).

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

The resolution rate is the percentage of all resolved complaints vs. all concluded complaints (86.1% overall).

What customers said about service provider public awareness activities

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.

Contact Centre activities

Our Contact Centre received more than 124,000 communications by telephone, in writing, and by online chat in 2024–25. This is a marginal increase of 0.2% from last year.

* Written correspondence refers to communication received via email, postal mail, and the CCTS online complaint form.

Written correspondence increased for the second year in a row. This year we saw a 16% increase after an increase of 76% last year. For the first time, it became the most-used type of communication, replacing phone calls.

Out-of-mandate issues

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

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

The tables below show the number of issues raised by customers that we could not accept because they were outside our mandate.

Procedural Code Section 3

Out-of-mandate issues have declined for six consecutive years, with a 30% decrease this year despite an increase in accepted complaints and issues. This steady downward trend may be due to the positive impact of ongoing improvements, such as complaint handling process and online customer complaint form enhancements.

* Some out-of-mandate issues are raised in complaints that also raise in-scope issues.

Procedural Code Section 4

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

This year, we saw the fourth year in a row of decreases. There were 4,337 issues, representing a 15% decrease year-over-year.

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 10.2(b)).
• The facts of the complaint relate to events that happened more than a year before the complaint was submitted (Section 10.3(a)).
• 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, issues that fell under our duty to decline to take action increased by 35%, following a decrease of 83% last year. At the end of the fiscal year (July 2025), we added guidance to our complaint form to help customers understand that they must work with their service provider before submitting a complaint to the CCTS.

Out-of-mandate accessibility issues

Most issues about a service provider’s failure to accommodate a customer’s accessibility requests are outside of our mandate.

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.

The CRTC codes that we administer contain some accessibility-related requirements. These are within our mandate. The Wireless Code, Television Service Provider Code, and Internet Code 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 Code of Conduct Reporting.

Analysis of closed complaints

This year, we closed 2,059 complaints. Most of these were due to uncooperative customers (59%), withdrawn complaints (19%), and duplicate complaints (15%). The following table breaks down the reasons for closing complaints and refers to the relevant sections of the Procedural Code.

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 their complaints. For example, we may close a complaint if the customer does not provide information about their complaint, does not respond to our inquiries, or refuses to engage with their provider during the 20-day Initial Referral stage. We make multiple attempts to elicit customer cooperation before closing a complaint.

Small business customer complaints

Our mandate provides recourse for small business customers whose monthly bill for all telecommunications services is normally under $2,500.

For the second year in a row, we saw an increase in complaints from small business customers. In 2024–25, we concluded 2,136 complaints submitted by small business customers, an increase of 60% from the previous year. This represents 10% of all concluded complaints this year.

The were 4,326 issues reported within those 2,136 complaints. This is a 52% increase in issues from last year. Small business customer issues make up 10% of all issues, up from 7% last year.

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

Compensation analysis

When complaints are resolved through the CCTS process, customers may receive compensation from their service provider. This compensation can take many forms, including:

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

At the Conciliation and Investigation stages, the CCTS may issue Investigation Findings that require providers to remedy the situation, including compensating the customer. At the Initial Referral stage, details of resolutions are often not shared with us, although some form of compensation might be part of the resolution reached directly between the customer and provider.

Based on the limited information available to us, total compensation awarded to customers through our process in 2024–25 was $4,243,774.

Board of Directors

Our Board is composed of seven directors who are elected for 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:
  • Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs)
  • cable companies
  • other Participating Service Providers (PSPs)

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

Board changes

In June 2025, Ruby Barber, LL.B., retired from the Board as Industry Director representing the ILECs. Molly Samuelson, BA, LL.B., joined the Board to represent the ILECs.

Board attendance

Committees and working groups: Membership and meetings

The Board’s committees and working groups for 2024–25, along with their meeting dates, are listed below.

Audit Committee
Geneviève Saumier (Chair), Trish Kiley (until Oct 2024), Michel Tremblay (starting Oct 2024), Leonard D. Eichel

Corporate Governance Committee
Trish Kiley (Chair), Catherine Aczel Boivie (until Oct 2024), Catherine Middleton, Ruby Barber (until Oct 2024), Todd Hofley (starting Oct 2024)

Independent Directors Committee
Trish Kiley (Chair), Catherine Aczel Boivie (until Oct 2024), Catherine Middleton, Geneviève Saumier, Michel Tremblay (starting Oct 2024)

Budget Working Group
Catherine Middleton, Ruby Barber, Leonard D. Eichel (observer)

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider

• Appendix A – Complaints by Service Provider (Microsoft Excel)

Appendix B – Detailed analysis of issues raised in complaints

• Appendix B – Detailed Analysis of Issues Raised in Complaints (Microsoft Excel)
• Appendix B – Detailed Analysis of Issues Raised in Complaints (Microsoft Excel, Accessible Format)

Appendix C – Financial statements

• Appendix C – CCTS 2024-2025 Financial Statements (PDF)

Appendix D – Issue classification system

• Appendix D – Issue Classification System (Microsoft Excel)