2024 Compliance Report Cards

Compliance with the CCTS’ Public Awareness Plan

2024 Compliance Report Cards

  Download one page report card

Canadians need to be aware of the CCTS and easily access information about it when they need help resolving disputes with their service providers. We recognize the ongoing importance of ensuring that the public knows about the services the CCTS provides and how to reach the CCTS when needed.

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 with the Public Awareness Plan;
  • 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, 2024.

Recent developments

In 2024, the telecommunications and broadcasting regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) reminded providers about their responsibility to inform customers about the CCTS and stated its view that Canadians are not being made aware of the CCTS effectively.[1] The CRTC conducted polling to gauge Canadian consumers’ current level of awareness about the CCTS.[2] One key finding of the poll was that that only 2% of respondents who had an unresolved complaint after contacting their service provider were made aware of the CCTS by their service provider. Following this finding, the CRTC initiated a request for information from large service providers to better understand how providers are fulfilling their obligations to inform their customers about the CCTS.[3]

The CCTS surveys customers that have used our services after their complaint is concluded to obtain customer feedback on our process and understand how they learned of the CCTS. We publish customer survey results in each of our Annual Reports. In 2023-24, few customers reported seeing information about the CCTS from their provider’s website (10%), on their bill (20%) or being told by their provider about the CCTS (10%).[4] This feedback helps us assess the effectiveness of the PSP Public Awareness Plan.

Requirements

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

Our approach

Our goal is to encourage compliance through educating and engaging PSPs about the requirements of the Public Awareness Plan. This year, we sent reminders about the Public Awareness Plan to all PSPs. In the reminders, we urged PSPs to self-assess their compliance with Public Awareness Plan requirements ahead of our scheduled audits and reminded them about how to find available CCTS guidance on ensuing compliance with requirements.

The CCTS annually audits:

  • PSP websites: a review of all PSPs that are audited to ensure that all the required CCTS information is available for customers on the PSP’s website.
  • 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 in the previous year.

The CCTS shares its audit results for each audited PSP with the PSP. When we find issues of non-compliance, we contact the PSP, provide an explanation, and request that the PSP 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.

PSP websites

In 2024, the CCTS audited 65 PSPs[5] to ensure their customers have access to the required website information and found that 18 out of 65 audited PSPs (28%) did not have any information about the CCTS on their websites. This is consistent with the results from the last four years (28 – 32% non-compliance). The providers without information about the CCTS on their websites in 2024 were all small PSPs. We collaborated extensively with those small providers that did not have information about the CCTS on their websites, and as a result, 14 out of 18 PSPs have now added the required information to their websites.

Although most audited PSPs had some information about the CCTS on their websites 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 graphic below.

Trends Observed

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

Trend 1: PSP compliance with website requirements is similar to 2023

Compliance levels were similar to what we observed in 2023. The results showed that 14 of the Top 25 PSPs were fully compliant from the onset. Of the smaller PSPs audited, only 7 out of 40 PSPs were fully compliant from the onset. 32% of PSPs were fully compliant initially, compared to 35% in 2023 and 18% in 2022.

Figure 1.1: PSPs compliance with website requirements – year over year
Figure 1.2: Rate of non-compliance with search function

Trend 2: Almost half of PSP websites did not return search results for CCTS

In 2024, the websites of 21 of the 65 PSPs we audited had a search function. The search function on a PSP website is a crucial tool customers use to find information. PSPs must ensure that using the search function on their websites results in providing the required CCTS information to customers on residential, small business, French, and English websites. If search results do not display CCTS information on all of a PSP’s websites, the CCTS considers the PSP non-compliant. We found that 9 of the 21 PSP websites (43%) that had a search function did not return CCTS information when searching for all keywords related to ‘‘CCTS’’ and “complaints.”

Although audited PSPs have become more compliant with the search requirement in the last few years, this remains an important area of focus for our compliance efforts going forward.

The CCTS reminds PSPs about the search function requirement each year in our Compliance Monitoring Report. This year, we notified all PSPs that they should check their websites to ensure compliance and that we would publicly name those PSPs which were repeatedly non-compliant. Despite this messaging, we continue to see significant numbers of PSPs not complying with the search function requirement. However, we note that all providers the CCTS had previously identified as repeatedly non-compliant with this requirement were compliant this year.

PSPs can ensure compliance with the search function requirement by implementing an internal control process for website updates. We continue to urge all PSPs to implement internal processes and regular checks to ensure that website updates do not change the CCTS-related results that must be returned by the search function.

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

Service providers are required to have information about the CCTS on their websites that is easy to find and clearly labeled.

Forty-seven of the 65 PSPs we audited had websites that contained CCTS information when audited. The CCTS information on nearly half of these websites (23) was either not easy to find or not clearly labelled. Although both small service providers and some of the 25 PSPs that generated the most complaints were non-compliant most of the issues were with small provider websites (18 out of 23). Although these providers had CCTS information somewhere on their websites, the information was not located where customers would likely be able to find it easily, such as in the fine print of a Privacy Policy or Terms of Service. After the CCTS notified those providers, 22 of 23 PSPs updated their website so that customers could easily find information about the CCTS.[6]

Over the years, we’ve provided guidance to all PSPs, including examples of how to clearly label the complaint page and make it easy for customers to find information about the CCTS. We continue to encourage all PSPs to carefully review the CCTS’ guidance and check that their websites adhere to those guidelines.

Top 25 PSPs documentation

In 2024, the CCTS audited the 25 PSPs that generated the most complaints in the previous year to determine whether they complied with the documentation requirements of the Public Awareness Plan, which includes invoices, white pages and the internal complaint-handling process.

Only two of these PSPs (8%) were non-compliant with the documentation requirements:

  • One PSP could not demonstrate it had a process in place to notify its customers about the CCTS in its complaint-handling process.
  • One PSP’s invoices did not contain information about the CCTS.

The CCTS worked with both providers, and they are now compliant with the requirements of the Public Awareness Plan.

Most providers (92%) were compliant with the documentation requirements. As noted above, the CRTC’s public opinion poll found that only 2% of respondents who had an unresolved complaint were made aware of the CCTS by their service provider.[7] The CCTS’ 2023-24 customer survey results showed that only 10% of customers said that their service provider told them about the CCTS during their efforts to resolve the problem.[8] In light of this finding, the CRTC has asked providers for more information to understand why customers are not being informed about the CCTS.[9]

Conclusion

Ensuring PSPs are compliant with the CCTS’ public awareness requirements is fundamental for customers 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 the CCTS

Compliance with the Procedural Code

2024 Compliance Report Cards

  Download one page report card

Compliance with the CCTS’ Procedural Code

PSPs are required 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 and trends regarding PSP compliance with the Procedural Code requirements between August 1, 2024 – January 31, 2025.

Our approach

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

  • If a PSP does not implement a complaint resolution or Investigation Finding, it deprives the customer of the remedy they are entitled to.
  • If a PSP charges the customer fees for filing a complaint with the CCTS, it punishes the customer for exercising their right to recourse.
  • If a PSP does not cooperate with a CCTS investigation, submits late responses to the CCTS or fails to provide relevant information, the CCTS’ complaint-handling process takes more time.

The CCTS monitors PSP compliance with the complaints process throughout the year. This report highlights some of the PSPs’ non-compliance issues we observed from August 1, 2024, to January 31, 2025. The CCTS will report on the full year of compliance activity in our Annual Report.

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

Observations on Procedural Code non-compliance

The CCTS observed the following issues regarding PSP compliance with the complaint-handling requirements:

  • Issue 1: Some PSPs failed to implement resolutions to which they had agreed, and also failed to implement formal 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[10] and Investigation Findings[11] are binding on PSPs and must be implemented.  When a PSP does not implement a resolution or Investigation Finding, the CCTS considers it to be an instance of major non-compliance with the Procedural Code because the PSP has deprived their customer of the remedy to which they are entitled, such as providing a refund or correcting the customer’s credit report. When a customer informs us and the CCTS determines that the PSP did not fulfill its obligation, the Compliance team works swiftly with the PSP to ensure implementation.

From August 1, 2024, to January 31, 2025, the CCTS identified nine confirmed instances of PSP failure to implement resolutions and Investigation Findings. In all nine cases,[12] the PSPs rectified the matter after engagement with the CCTS’ Compliance team, and the customers confirmed that they received their agreed-upon remedy from the complaint process.

This is a significant increase in the number of PSPs failing to implement resolutions and Investigation Findings. Last year, the CCTS reported 11 confirmed breaches from August 1, 2023 to July 31, 2024. We have confirmed nine breaches at the mid-point of the year. Some of these issues arose because there was a lack of clarity between the resolution proposed by the PSP and how the customer understood the resolution when they accepted it. As a result, when the customer did not receive the resolution they expected, they contacted the CCTS. We review the resolution and ensure that the customer receives what was agreed to. We urge providers to ensure that the resolution, especially if proposed by the provider, is clear.

 

PSPs must implement resolutions and Investigation Findings

Case Summary

Compliance case summary: PSP delayed carrying out resolution and issued subsequent invoice to the customer

A customer complained about poor Internet service, which led the customer to cancel their service before the end of the 30-day trial period offered by the provider. The customer contacted the CCTS after the service provider did not honour the 30-day trial period and charged an early cancellation fee.

The complaint was resolved at the Conciliation stage after the customer accepted the provider’s offer to close their account and waive all charges. However, a few weeks later, the customer informed us that the service provider sent a bill for the account that was supposed to have been closed and attempted to withdraw the invoiced amount from the customer’s credit card.

The Compliance team engaged the PSP to remind it of its obligation under the Participation Agreement and the Procedural Code to ensure that resolutions are implemented. The Compliance team instructed the PSP to remedy this non-implementation and demonstrate that the account had been closed with no further charges to the customer. The PSP complied and subsequently provided confirmation that the customer account had been closed and that all existing charges were removed from the customer’s account.

Issue 2: PSP threatened customer for filing a complaint with the CCTS

When a customer complains to the CCTS:

PSPs must not threaten customers with legal action, fees, loss of credits, 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. the PSP says it will sue the customer in court) or charge additional fees because the customer has filed a complaint with CCTS. The CCTS tracks these allegations and considers them to be instances of major non-compliance when confirmed. The CCTS treats these cases with high priority: we inform the PSP that it is not allowed to make such threats and seek confirmation that the offending conduct will stop immediately.

In November 2024, the CCTS confirmed one instance in which a PSP[13] threatened a customer in response to the customer filing a CCTS complaint. The customer had filed a previous complaint, which had been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of both the customer and the provider. In response to the new customer complaint, the PSP had responded that it would remove a credit that was applied to the customer’s account as part of the resolution for the previous CCTS complaint. The CCTS contacted the PSP to explain that removing a credit for filing a subsequent CCTS complaint penalizes a customer for pursuing a complaint with the CCTS, which is contrary to the CCTS process. The PSP agreed and informed the CCTS that they would not remove the credit from the customer’s account.

Often, when we engage PSPs and explain the rules around the complaint process, the PSP is cooperative and complies quickly and this was the case in the above complaint. We appreciate working with PSPs that want to do the right thing. We strive to help PSPs better understand the CCTS complaint process and point them to the many written and video resources we have developed for PSPs.

Monitoring PSP compliance with the complaint-handling process

For the CCTS to resolve complaints effectively and efficiently, we need PSPs to act responsibly and comply with the CCTS complaint process. When PSPs comply with the rules and cooperate in good faith in the CCTS process, complaints are handled more efficiently and effectively, contributing to customer satisfaction. Ultimately, it is in the interest of all parties – customers, PSPs and the CCTS – to ensure that complaints are handled effectively and efficiently.

We continue to monitor PSP compliance with the rules and report on compliance results. We continue to develop and provide proactive guidance on compliance through videos, knowledge articles and checklists to ensure PSP compliance with the complaint handling rules.

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 to be major non-compliance with the Procedural Code because the PSP has deprived its 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 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 exercising that right. The CCTS tracks these allegations and considers them to be instances of major non-compliance when we can reasonably conclude that the PSP engaged 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 seeks confirmation that the offending conduct will stop immediately.

PSPs must follow the rules when objecting to complaints

The CCTS Procedural Code allows the CCTS to accept telecom and television-related complaints, with certain exceptions. PSPs have the right to object to the CCTS accepting a complaint if they believe it falls within one of these exceptions. A recent change to the rules now requires PSPs to file objections within 10 days of being informed that the CCTS has accepted the complaint, instead of the previous 15-day timeframe.

When filing an objection, PSPs must clearly state the reason and provide supporting documentation for the CCTS to evaluate its validity. If a PSP objects to a complaint but fails to follow the required procedure, it is considered a breach of the Procedural Code. Common objection-related breaches include submitting an objection late, failing to provide an explanation or supporting evidence, or objecting on an improper basis, such as disputing the merit of the customer’s complaint rather than its eligibility under the rules.

Non-compliance with objection rules causes unnecessary delays in the complaint process and hinders the effectiveness of the CCTS. Each year, we track objection-related breaches, and we will continue monitoring PSP misuse of 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 the initial referral stage, the PSP must provide a written response to the CCTS and to the customer indicating that the complaint is resolved. After a PSP tells the CCTS that a complaint is resolved, the customer has 20 days to dispute the response submitted by the PSP. PSPs should only inform us that a complaint is resolved when it 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 and provide required information for 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 efficiency and cost effectiveness 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 that more PSPs will provide the CCTS with all relevant documents with their unresolved response in the future to get the full benefit of the CCTS’ conciliation processes.

PSPs must provide all requested documentation at Investigation in a timely manner

When the CCTS investigates a complaint at Investigation the CCTS requires PSPs to provide requested documents and information in a timely manner.  It is crucial that PSPs provide this information before the CCTS concludes 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; and
  • may result in adverse findings against the PSP concerning whether it met its obligations to the customer.

In other words, it is imperative for PSPs to comply with this requirement 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, and threatening to suspend the customer’s service or initiate collections activity if a disputed 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

2024 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:

Our approach

The CCTS funding model distributes the cost 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 certify and 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 PSPs are required to provide certified financial information so we can determine their retail forborne revenues. In 2023, the CCTS simplified the process for smaller PSPs with less than $10 million annual retail revenues to require an attestation about their revenues, rather than detailed financial reporting, to reduce the administrative burden for small PSPs. Despite making the process easier for small providers to complete, we saw levels of non-compliance similar to previous years.

In 2024, 82 out of 299 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 provide this information to us each year and between 2018 and 2024, PSPs’ response rate was 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 the CCTS is a not-for-profit organization that recovers its costs from all PSPs, non-payment of fees by some providers means that their non-payment is unfairly shouldered by all other PSPs.

Non-compliance with financial requirements

PSPs must provide financial information annually and pay their CCTS fees within 30 days. If a PSP fails to do either, the provider risks being in default of the agreement between the CCTS and all PSPs. The CCTS may take additional enforcement actions if the PSP does not rectify this default, which includes publicly identifying that the provider is in default and may include terminating the provider from its participation in the CCTS. The CCTS refers any provider terminated from its participation in the CCTS to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission for further enforcement action.

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

Note: PSPs that were subsequently terminated because they were no longer operating or providing telecom service are indicated by *

  • 0714773 BC Ltd. – Unmetered
  • 1085459 Ontario Ltd.- Kingston Online Services
  • 1207901 Ontario Ltd. – Toronto Telecom
  • 1700247 Ontario Limited – Toronto Telecom
  • 1784150 Ontario Inc. – Tekdata Telecom
  • 1875362 Ontario Inc. – Tikatel
  • 2343842 Ontario Inc. – Smart Telecom
  • 2470618 Ontario Inc. – Net Live
  • 3095959 Canada Inc. – Telemart
  • 4pairless Communications Inc.
  • 8064555 Canada Corp. – Rapid Connex
  • 9045-2855 Québec Inc. – Digicom Internet sans fil
  • 9249-4129 Quebec Inc. – Allesi Télécom et Sécurité
  • 9257-8368 Québec Inc. – Mazagan Telecom
  • 9280-6850 Quebec Inc. – ConnectMoi Telecom
  • 9326-9108 Québec inc. EMAK Telecom
  • Aerial Internet Solutions
  • Alanik Technologies
  • AllCore Communications Inc.
  • Canada Relink
  • Canadian Car Club Corporation
  • CaspianWave TSP Inc.*
  • Caztel Communications Inc.
  • China Creek Internet LTD.
  • Cloudli Communications Corporation
  • Columbia Wireless Inc.
  • Convergia Networks Inc.
  • Cybernet Communications Ltd
  • Diallog Telecommunications Corp.
  • Dialpad, Inc.
  • DID Logic Limited
  • E-SatTel.ca Inc.
  • eTor Networks
  • Fonus Limited
  • Galaxy Broadband Communications Inc.
  • Greater Sudbury Telecommunications Inc.
  • Ice Wireless
  • Internet Papineau Inc.
  • Iristel Inc.
  • iTeraTEL Communications Inc.
  • King George Communications
  • Lanctot informatique inc.
  • Maximum ISP Inc.
  • Movita Communications Inc.
  • Multi-Techniques (RDL) Inc.
  • MySignal.ca
  • NCS Managed Services Inc.
  • Neurological Wellness Association
  • Odynet Inc.
  • Oshawa PUC Services Inc
  • Oxbo Technologies Inc.
  • Paging Network of Canada Inc.
  • Poynt360 Inc.
  • PWHR Solutions
  • Quality Speaks LLC
  • Quantum Internet Solutions Ltd.
  • Querizon Inc.
  • Radia Telecom Inc.*
  • Redbox Solutions Limited
  • RSCOM Business LLC
  • Scandia ISP Internet Inc.
  • Simconet Technologies Inc.
  • SpeakOut Wireless, 7-Eleven Inc.
  • Springtel Communications Inc.
  • Sugar Mobile Inc.
  • Surf Media Incorporated
  • Syban Systems Ltd.
  • Grand Networks Inc.
  • T.A. Networks Inc.
  • Talkit.ca Inc.
  • Tamaani Internet (Kativik Regional Government)
  • The WISP Group Inc.
  • TNEXT Communication Inc.
  • Total Cable Services Inc.
  • Truespeed Internet Services Inc.
  • Uniserve Communications Corporation
  • Vodalink Telecom Inc.
  • VoIP Much Phone Company Inc
  • Von Der Welt Inc.*
  • Vonage Canada Corporation
  • Vox Sun
  • WiMac Tel Inc.

Footnotes

  1. Statement by the CRTC’s Vice-President of Consumer, Analytics and Strategy, Scott Hutton, on recent actions to protect Canadians, 5 November 2024, https://www.canada.ca/en/radio-television-telecommunications/news/2024/11/statement-by-the-crtcs-vice-president-of-consumer-analytics-and-strategy-scott-hutton-on-recent-actions-to-protect-canadians.html.
  2. Public Opinion Research Report: “Understanding consumer awareness and satisfaction with the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (CCTS).” April, 2024. See “E. Key Findings” section: https://epe.bac-lac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/crtc/2024/080-23-e/080-23-report.html#a1.5.
  3. Broadcasting and Telecom – Secretary General Letter – ref CR104 – Reminder to Service Providers to make customers aware of the CCTS, November 5, 2024, https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2024/lb241105.htm?_ga=2.91287896.339985199.1736779617-1724186827.1713371788.
  4. CCTS 2023-24 Annual Report, “Working with customers: Listening to customers – What customers said about service provider public awareness activities” https://pub.ccts-cprst.ca/2023-2024-annual-report/working-with-customers/.
  5. There were two rounds of Public Awareness Plan audits in January 2024 and September 2024.

    • The audit conducted in January 2024 consisted of 19 randomly selected PSPs that CCTS had not previously audited and 2 PSPs previously identified as non-compliant.
    • In September 2024, we audited 44 PSPs which included the 25 PSPs that generated the most CCTS complaints in the previous year, as listed in the 2022-2023 Annual Report, 18 randomly selected PSPs (previously unaudited), and 1 PSP previously identified as non-compliant. 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 249 PSP brands since 2018.

  6. iTeraTEL Communications Inc. did not update its website.
  7. Public Opinion Research Report: “Understanding consumer awareness and satisfaction with the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (CCTS).” April 2024. See “E. Key Findings” section: https://epe.bac-lac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/crtc/2024/080-23-e/080-23-report.html#a1.5.
  8. CCTS 2023-24 Annual Report, “Working with customers: Listening to customers – What customers said about service provider public awareness activities” https://pub.ccts-cprst.ca/2023-2024-annual-report/working-with-customers/.
  9. Broadcasting and Telecom – Secretary General Letter – ref CR104 – Reminder to Service Providers to make customers aware of the CCTS, November 5, 2024. https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2024/lb241105.htm?_ga=2.91287896.339985199.1736779617-1724186827.1713371788.
  10. Mutually acceptable resolutions are agreements between the PSP and the customer on a specific outcome or actions to be carried out to resolve a complaint filed with the CCTS.
  11. 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 provide 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.
  12. Three complaints with Rogers, two complaints with Bell Canada, one complaint with Tiny Mobile, one complaint with TELUS, one complaint with Shaw and one complaint with DigiCom Internet.
  13. Bell Canada

For best results, print using Google Chrome

Français