Helping Canadians for 10+ YEARS 2017-18 ANNUAL REPORT

“I was very impressed with your services” – L.T., customer in BC “I was very satisfied with the process.” – H.R., internet customer in ON “Awesome service. We are very content with the service and resolution.” – G.C., phone customer in NS “My agent was nice and super understanding” – D.W., TV customer in NB “I was very impressed with your services” – L.T., wireless customer in BC “I was very satisfied with the process.”– H.R., internet customer in ON “Awesome service. We are very content with the service and resolution.” – G.C., phone customer in NS “My agent was nice and super understanding” – D.W., TV customer in NB “I was very impressed with your services” – L.T., wireless customer in BC “I was very satisfied with the process.”– H.R., internet customer in ON “Awesome service. We are very content with the service and resolution.” – G.C., phone customer in NS “My agent was nice and super understanding” – D.W., TV customer in NB “I was very impressed with your services” –L.T., wireless customer in BC “I was very satisfied with the process.” – H.R., internet customer in ON “Awesome service. We are very content with the service and resolution.” – G.C., phone customer in NS “My agent was nice and super understanding” – D.W., TV customer in NB “I was very impressed with your services” – L.T., wireless customer in BC

P.O. Box 56067 – Minto Place RO, , ON K1R 7Z1 www.ccts-cprst.ca [email protected] 1-888-221-1687 TTY: 1-877-782-2384 Fax: 1-877-782-2924 CONTENTS

2017-18 HIGHLIGHTS 2 TOPICS AND TRENDS 15 STATISTICAL REPORTS 42 Overview Contact Centre activities CHAIR’S MESSAGE 3 Internet Out-of-mandate issues Internet service delivery issues Small business COMMISSIONER’S 4 Wireless: Overview of issues Analysis of closed complaints MESSAGE Wireless non-disclosure issues Compensation analysis Non-disclosure issues Performance standards WHO WE ARE 5 for all types of service Regional analysis AND WHAT WE DO Incorrect charges: monthly price plan Our mandate GOVERNANCE 49 Our complaints process WORKING WITH 24 Board of Directors Year in review PARTICIPATING Director biographies SERVICE PROVIDERS Board changes - Top 10 PSP profiles 2017 18 COMPLAINTS 7 Meetings and director attendance About our data Compliance Committee meetings Operational statistics Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program CCTS budget 2017-18 operational statistics overview Strategic and operational initiatives for 2017-18 WORKING WITH 39 CODE OF CONDUCT 10 CUSTOMERS REPORTING Introduction APPENDICES 52 Introduction Website Appendix A – Complaints Resolving complaints and by service provider analyzing code compliance Accessibility Appendix B – Detailed analysis Wireless Code Customer survey results of issues raised in complaints Deposit and Disconnection Code Appendix C – Financial statements Television Service Provider Code Appendix D – Definitions

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 1 2017-18 HIGHLIGHTS

COMPLAINTS UP 57% 92% of concluded complaints successfully resolved

98% of complaints resolved at the first stage of our process were concluded within 40 days

172 service providers another 111 360 brands operated had ZERO complaints had 3 or less by 242 service providers

Over 17% of complaints accepted included a TV problem, under 5% were about TV alone, 1 TVSP Code confirmed breach

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 2 Message from the Chair of the Board of Directors CATHERINE ACZEL BOIVIE

CHAIR’S MESSAGE

This is my second message as Chair of the CCTS Board of Directors. Last year I wrote about many of the initiatives being undertaken in 2017-18, including the expansion of our mandate to include complaints about subscription TV services and the development of a service provider compliance monitoring program. I am pleased to report that these were successfully implemented. The results can be found in this Annual Report.

The CCTS celebrated its tenth anniversary in 2017, and information. As part of this initiative, we will review the I am very proud of the work completed on behalf of technologies we use to facilitate access to our service, Canadian consumers and service providers. Looking to determine how we can make it more accessible for ahead, we have identified a number of projects that we customers, service providers and staff. intend to undertake in 2018-19 to provide better service to our customers. Instead of reinventing the wheel, we intend to explore the approaches taken by organizations similar to ours We have begun the process of developing a new strategic worldwide, and the tools they use in a rapidly changing plan to guide the priorities of the organization in the years digital world. In this way, we can ensure that we remain ahead. This is a challenging undertaking in an organization among the leaders in delivering the best service we established to allow for diverse stakeholder representation can to our customers. on the Board as well as to respond to continuous change, such as the CRTC’s sales practice review, planned to start At the beginning of our fiscal year, Dennis Béland, the in late October of 2018. I am confident that the Board director appointed by the cable companies, retired from and the CCTS staff will complete the new strategic plan the Board after nearly ten years of service. I would like to successfully, working in the cooperative manner that has thank him for his dedication and invaluable contribution become the hallmark of our governance of the CCTS. to the organization throughout his tenure. In his place, we welcomed Dean Shaikh as the newest member As we continue to position ourselves for future success, of the Board. we intend in 2018-19 to conduct a review of the processes used to deliver our primary service—helping telecom My message would not be complete without a word and TV customers and their service providers resolve of sincere thanks to the Commissioner, Howard Maker, their disputes efficiently and effectively. Despite our past and to all the CCTS staff for their dedication and hard success in fulfilling this objective, we must always be work. Thanks to their ongoing efforts to meet stakeholder open to exploring new approaches. For this reason, we needs, I believe we are well-positioned to undertake the intend to carry out a detailed examination of the way in new initiatives mentioned above. which we deliver our service as well as gather and analyze

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 3 Message from the Commissioner HOWARD MAKER

COMMISSIONER’S MESSAGE

The big story for the CCTS in 2017-18 was the rapid and significant increase in complaints received from Canadian telecom and TV customers. With the addition of TV complaints to our mandate in September of 2017, we did anticipate an increase—but not the 57% that we received. And our data shows that it was not TV complaints that pushed up the numbers. Complaints about TV alone accounted for less than 5% of all complaints accepted. The increase was in the same types of issues that Canadians have complained about historically: sales transactions that go wrong, service that doesn’t work as expected, and billing problems.

The number of complaints we accepted this year might You may notice a change this year in the way we have been even greater but for our proactive approach report the complaint results for our Participating Service to an unusual situation. Providers (PSPs) in the Top 10 profiles and in Appendix A. Some service providers have commented that simply Earlier this year a wireless provider decided to remove a describing the number of complaints we receive from particular plan from the market. Customers were outraged, their customers is misleading because this implies that claiming that when they signed up the provider had all complaints have merit. promised to never retire the plan. In the next 36 hours, customers took to social media to express their outrage. For many reasons, we have never tracked complaint Also, 1,600 Canadians filled out our online interactive outcomes (wins and losses). However, to provide more questionnaire to complain. We spoke to the provider and insight into the breakdown of how complaints are concluded, informed it of the large number of dissatisfied customers. we have revised our reporting to show in a more detailed way It promptly reversed the change. exactly how complaints are concluded. We hope you will find this helpful, and we welcome your feedback as we continue The large increase in complaints this year did have an to consider the best way to report our statistics. effect on our operations, and it has taken us somewhat longer to handle those complaints that reach our The CCTS is continuing to grow: more complaints, more investigation level. However, our operational results demands, more staff, higher expectations, and a larger continue to be good. budget. The CCTS has been successful—and will continue to be so—only through the efforts of our dedicated staff. We concluded almost 4,600 more complaints than This year they have worked tirelessly to ensure that we last year. Our focus on efficiently resolving complaints deliver the best possible service to customers and service resulted in the successful resolution of almost 92% of all providers, all to accomplish our mission of providing the complaints we handled this year. Of the complaints outstanding dispute resolution services. To all of you resolved, 84% were resolved at the pre-investigation stage, I offer my most sincere thanks. usually within 30 days of the complaint being received. And our customer survey continues to show high levels of satisfaction with various aspects of our process, including the timeliness of our work.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 4 WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO

Our mandate The CCTS is ’s national and independent organization dedicated to resolving customer complaints about (telecom) and TV services. We work with consumers, small businesses and participating Canadian service providers to resolve disputes about INTERNET WIRELESS1 most telecom and subscription TV services after direct communications between a customer and a service provider have proven ineffective. Services We can help with most types of problems between a in our customer and service provider, including disputes about mandate contracts, billing, service delivery and credit management.

For full details, see our Mandate web page.

For an overview of who we are and what we do, watch this video. PHONE3 TV2 1 Including voice, data and text. 2 For residential customers only. 3 For home and small business, including long distance, white page directories, directory assistance and operator services.

Our complaints process We regularly examine our complaint-handling process to ensure that it is thorough, fair, effective and efficient. The steps in the process are: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ASSESSMENT COMPLAINT INFORMAL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATION DECISION ACCEPTED RESOLUTION (or out of mandate)

For an overview of our complaint resolution process, watch this video.

For a detailed explanation of the steps in the process, see our Complaints process explained web page. YEAR IN REVIEW

AUGUST 2017 CCTS approves amendments to its Public Awareness Plan, effective February 2018. SEPTEMBER 2017 CCTS expands its mandate to begin accepting complaints about TV issues and administering the CRTC Television Service Provider Code (TVSP).

CCTS launches new online “Submit a Complaint” interactive questionnaire on newly-redesigned website. OCTOBER 2017 Canadian cable companies elect Dean Shaikh to represent them on the CCTS Board for a three-year term. NOVEMBER 2017 CCTS issues 2016-17 Annual Report. DECEMBER 2017 CRTC’s revised Wireless Code comes into effect. JANUARY 2018 CRTC initiates a proceeding against six service providers who had refused to participate in the CCTS. All six later joined. FEBRUARY 2018 CCTS participates in CRTC proceeding reviewing wireless phone unlocking rules.

CCTS Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program comes into effect. APRIL 2018 CCTS issues 2017-18 Mid-year Report.

JUNE 2018 CCTS publishes its first two videos: “What is the CCTS?” and “This is how our complaint process works”. JULY 2018 CRTC launches inquiry into use of misleading or aggressive sales practices by large telecom service providers. AUGUST 2018 CCTS terminates participation of AllCore Communications for non-compliance and refers AllCore to CRTC for action.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 6 2017-18 COMPLAINTS

This section provides a broad overview of this year’s complaint The complaints we receive and investigate after July 31, 2018 data. Additional detailed analysis follows throughout the report. will be in next year’s Annual Report. For definitions of the terms used in this section, see Appendix D. Included in this report are all telecom complaints accepted during the 2017-18 fiscal year and all TV complaints accepted on or after About our data the September 1, 2017 effective date. We report on the complaints that were accepted between It’s important to note that a single complaint may raise more August 1, 2017 and July 31, 2018 (our fiscal year) as well as than one issue for wireless, internet, phone and TV services. on the complaints that were concluded between those dates. A portion of our concluded complaints are audited throughout the year for quality assurance. Operational statistics TABLE 1: THREE-YEAR SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAL STATISTICS 2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 YoY YoY YoY Number change Number change Number change

Complaints accepted 14,272 57% 9,097 11% 8,197 -18%

Complaints concluded 13,224 53% 8,641 4% 8,323 -19%

COMPLAINTS RESOLVED 12,149 55% 7,846 6% 7,431 -16%

Complaints resolved at pre-investigation 10,214 57% 6,510 9% 5,979 -14%

Complaints resolved at investigation 1,935 45% 1,336 -8% 1,452 -25%

COMPLAINTS CLOSED 1,068 35% 791 -9% 870 -33%

Complaints closed at pre-investigation 337 13% 297 -5% 311 -42%

Complaints closed at investigation 731 48% 494 -12% 559 -27%

Recommendations accepted 5 67% 3 -84% 19 -47%

Decisions issued 2 100% 1 -67% 3 -63%

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 7 2017-18 COMPLAINTS

2017-18 operational statistics overview

COMPLAINTS 12,149 RESOLVED 10,214 complaints resolved at pre-investigation 1,935 complaints resolved 13,224 at investigation Complaints concluded COMPLAINTS 1,068 CLOSED 337 complaints closed at pre-investigation 731 complaints closed at investigation

RECOMMENDATIONS 5 ACCEPTED

DECISIONS 2 ISSUED

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 8 2017-18 COMPLAINTS

TABLE 2: LEADING COMPLAINT ISSUES, BROKEN DOWN BY SERVICE TYPE

Service Billing Contract dispute Service delivery Credit management Total

Wireless 5,393 4,880 1,947 537 12,757

Internet 3,223 2,909 2,580 275 8,987

Local phone 2,034 1,933 1,242 145 5,354

TV 1,448 1,163 560 77 3,248

Long distance 203 95 81 4 383

Directory assistance 1 0 0 0 1

White page directories 0 0 0 0 0

Operator services 4 0 0 0 4

TOTAL 12,306 10,980 6,410 1,038 30,734

The largest number of complaint issues related to wireless services, including the largest number of issues with billing and contract disputes. However, internet service had the largest number of service delivery issues.

FIGURE 1: COMPLAINT ISSUES BY SERVICE TYPE FIGURE 2: MAIN COMPLAINT ISSUES

0 0

0 0 41.5% 40.0% 0 0 35.7% 29.2% 0 0 20.9% 20 17.4% 20

10 10.6% 10 3.4% 0 1.2% 0 0% 0% 0%

Wireless Long distance Billing Internet Operator services Contract dispute Local phone Directory assistance Service delivery TV White page directories Credit management

Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 9 CODE OF CONDUCT REPORTING

Introduction Wireless Code As the CCTS investigates customer complaints about telecom In developing the Wireless Code, the CRTC sought to ensure that and TV services, we try to determine if the service provider consumers of voice and data services are better informed of the has reasonably met its responsibilities to its customer. We use rights and obligations contained in their contracts. The Wireless three CRTC codes of conduct as yardsticks against which we Code applies to individual and small business consumers, and measure service provider conduct: all wireless service providers must follow its guidelines.

• Wireless Code: For consumer and small business (mobile) A revised Wireless Code came into effect on December 1, wireless services 2017 (Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2017-200). As part of that decision, the CRTC clarified a number of provisions • Deposit & Disconnection (D&D) Code: For home phone services in the original Wireless Code, based on many of the CCTS’ previous interpretations. • Television Service Provider (TVSP) Code: For subscription TV services (residential customers only) FIGURE 3: SUMMARY OF WIRELESS CODE BREACHES

For more detailed information about the preceding codes, see:

• CCTS Annotated Guide to the Wireless Code ALLEGED 3,539 BREACHES • CCTS Annotated Guide to the Deposit & Disconnection Code

• CRTC Television Service Provider Code ALLEGED BREACHES NOT REQUIRING INVESTIGATION Resolving complaints 3,172 and analyzing code compliance

When we accept a customer complaint we record and track BREACHES all of the issues raised in the complaint. Some complaints raise 367 INVESTIGATED questions about whether a service provider has complied with a code of conduct. We call these “alleged breaches.”

The vast majority of complaints are resolved to the satisfaction CONFIRMED NO of the customer and the service provider at an early stage of 111 BREACHES 256 BREACH 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.”

In the cases that we do investigate, we can determine whether “A rep from the service provider contacted there has been a violation. We categorize proven violations as “confirmed breaches.” When we investigate and determine that me after I filed my complaint with the there has not been a violation, we categorize this as “no breach.” CCTS and resolved my issue.” In this section, we present statistical reports on breaches of – T.C., a wireless customer from BC the three applicable codes using the preceding terminology.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 10 2017-18 CODE OF CONDUCT REPORTING

TABLE 3: WIRELESS CODE CONFIRMED BREACHES BY SECTION

2017-18 Number of % of total confirmed confirmed YoY Code section breaches breaches change A. Clarity 6 5.4% 20.0% A.1. Plain language 5 4.5% 25.0% A.2. Prices 0 0.0% – A.3. Unlimited services 1 0.9% – B. Contracts and related documents 28 25.2% 12.0% B.1.(i-ii) Permanent copy of the contract and related documents1 11 9.9% -26.7% B.1.(iii) a-e Key contract terms and conditions2 15 13.5% 114.3% B.1.(iii) f-m Other aspects of the contract3 0 0.0% -100.0% B.2. Prepaid service contracts 2 1.8% – C. Critical Information Summary 1 0.9% -66.7% C.1. Critical Information Summary 1 0.9% -66.7% D. Changes to contracts and related documents 2 1.8% -33.3% D.1. Changes to key contract terms and conditions 2 0.0% -33.3% D.2. Changes to other contract terms and conditions or related documents 0 1.8% – E. Bill management 41 36.9% 115.8% E.1. International roaming notification 2 1.8% 100.0% E.2. Cap on data roaming charges 2 1.8% – E.3. Cap on data overage charges 33 29.7% 120.0% E.4. Unsolicited wireless services 4 3.6% – F. Mobile device issues 10 9.0% 233.3% F.1.(i) Unlocking – Locked phone sold 1 0.9% – F.1.(ii) Unlocking – means to unlock not provided4 9 8.1% 200.0% G. Contract cancellation and extension 8 7.2% -20.0% G.1. Early cancellation fees – General 3 2.7% -62.5% G.2. Early cancellation fees – Calculation – Subsidized device 0 0.0% -100.0% G.3. Early cancellation fees – No subsidized device 0 0.0% – G.4. Trial period 1 0.9% – G.5. Cancellation date 4 3.6% 300.0% H. Security deposits 1 0.9% -50.0% H.1. Requesting, reviewing, and returning a security deposit 1 0.9% -50.0% I. Disconnection 14 12.6% -12.5% I.1. When disconnection may occur 0 0.0% -100.0% I.2. Notice before disconnection 14 12.6% 7.7% I.3. Disputing disconnection charges 0 0.0% – TOTAL 111 29.1%

1 This subsection was B.1.(i-iii) in the pre-December 1, 2017 version of the Code. 2 This subsection was B.1.(iv) a-e in the pre-December 1, 2017 version of the Code. 3 This subsection was B.1.(iv) f-m in the pre-December 1, 2017 version of the Code. 4 This subsection was F.1.(i) in the pre-December 1, 2017 version of the Code. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 11 2017-18 CODE OF CONDUCT REPORTING

Section E of the Code (bill management) was the most breached section (almost 37%) of all issues, and a 115% increase over last year.

TABLE 4: WIRELESS CODE CONFIRMED BREACHES BY SERVICE PROVIDER

2017-18 rmed breaches rmation Summary related documents documents related documents related ncellation and extension extension and ncellation

Service provider of Number confirmed breaches % of all confi A. Clarity Section Section B. Contracts and Section C. Critical Info Section Changes D. to contracts and Section E. Bill Management issues device Mobile Section F. Section G. Contract ca Section Security H. deposits Disconnection I. Section YoY change

Rogers 44 39.6% 3.6% 7.2% 0.9% 0.9% 22.5% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 3.6% 76.0%

Bell Canada 23 20.7% 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 7.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 21.1%

Virgin Mobile 10 9.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 1.8% 233.3%

TELUS 10 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.8% 1.8% 2.7% 0.0% 1.8% -41.2%

Fido 9 8.1% 0.9% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 1.8% 200.0%

Freedom Mobile Inc. 7 6.3% 0.9% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.9% 1.8% 16.7%

Videotron 3 2.7% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% –

PC Mobile 2 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% –

Speak Out Wireless 2 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% –

SaskTel 1 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% –

TOTAL 111 100%

Rogers had almost 40% of all confirmed breaches and showed The next three service providers, Virgin, and Fido, together a 76% increase in the number of confirmed breaches over last accounted for over 26% of confirmed breaches. Virgin showed year, when it also had the highest percentage of all Wireless a 233% increase in breaches over last year while Fido showed Code breaches. had almost 21% of confirmed a 200% increase. By contrast, TELUS had a 41% decrease in breaches, a 21.1% increase over last year. breaches from last year.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 12 2017-18 CODE OF CONDUCT REPORTING

Deposit and Disconnection Code The D&D Code is a mandatory CRTC code of conduct that provides home phone customers with protection in some cases when they’re required to provide a deposit as a condition of obtaining home phone service or when a service provider intends to disconnect the customer’s home phone service.

FIGURE 4: SUMMARY OF D&D CODE BREACHES TABLE 5: D&D CONFIRMED BREACHES BY SECTION

2017-18 ALLEGED 95 BREACHES Number of % of total confirmed confirmed Code section breaches breaches

3.1 Improper disconnection / ALLEGED BREACHES NOT 0 0.0% No grounds 70 REQUIRING INVESTIGATION 3.2 Notice at least 14 days prior 3 50.0%

3.3 Advise customer 24 hours prior 3 50.0%

BREACHES TOTAL 6 100% 25 INVESTIGATED Confirmed breaches of the D&D Code continue to decline, with just under half as many breaches (6) this year as last year (13). CONFIRMED NO 6 BREACHES 19 BREACH

TABLE 6: D&D CONFIRMED BREACHES BY SERVICE PROVIDER

2017-18 firmed dvise dvise

Service provider of Number confirmed breaches % of all con breaches YoY change Section 3.2 Notice at least days prior14 Section 3.3 A customer hours24 prior

Bell Canada 2 33.3% -50.0% 16.7% 16.7%

Vonage 2 33.3% – 16.7% 16.7%

Bell Aliant 1 16.7% -75.0% – 16.7%

Primus 1 16.7% – 16.7% –

TOTAL 6 100% -53.8% – –

Bell Canada accounted for over one-third of all confirmed breaches, the exact same percentage as . Together, and Primus accounted for another third.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 13 2017-18 CODE OF CONDUCT REPORTING

Television Service Provider Code FIGURE 5: SUMMARY OF TVSP CODE BREACHES As of September 1, 2017, the CCTS administers the CRTC Television Service Provider Code (TVSP Code). The Code ALLEGED is intended to make it easier for Canadians to understand 431 BREACHES their television service agreements and empowers residential customers in their relationships with TVSPs.

The TVSP Code applies only to consumers (not small ALLEGED BREACHES NOT businesses), and all licensed TV service providers must follow 420 REQUIRING INVESTIGATION its guidelines. We address complaints about subscription TV services provided by cable, Internet Protocol television (IPTV) and national satellite direct-to-home (DTH) TV service providers. BREACHES Our authority to deal with these complaints is limited to 11 INVESTIGATED events that occurred on or after September 1, 2017.

For more details about the TVSP Code, see our TVSP Code web page. CONFIRMED NO 1 BREACH 10 BREACH

The only confirmed breach was to Section XI (Changes to programming options) by Bell.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 14 TOPICS AND TRENDS

Overview In 2017-18, Canadians filed over 14,000 complaints about their There were 111 confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code service providers, an increase of 57% over last year. We are in 2017-18, a 29% increase from last year, largely driven by proud to have been able to successfully resolve almost 92% increases in confirmed breaches of Section B (contracts and of these complaints. related documents) and Section E (bill management). Confirmed breaches of the Deposit and Disconnection (D&D) Code continue Along with an increase in complaints, there has been an increase to decline, with only six this year: less than half the number from in the number of individual issues. Consumers raised a total of last year. We confirmed only one breach of the new Television 30,734 individual issues that fell within the CCTS mandate, an Service Provider (TVSP) Code since we began accepting increase of 67% over last year. Issues relating to wireless services complaints in September 2017. continue to be raised the most often, representing over 41% of all issues raised, followed by problems with internet service, which account for another 29% of issues.

TABLE 7: NUMBER OF ISSUES BY TYPE OF SERVICE, YoY CHANGE

# of issues % of all issues # of issues YoY change in # Service in 2017-18 in 2017-18 in 2016-17 of issues raised

Wireless 12,757 42% 8,543 49%

Internet 8,987 29% 5,763 56%

Local phone 5,354 17% 3,766 42%

TV* 3,248 11% – –

Other 388 1% 376 3%

TOTAL 30,734 100% 18,448 67%

*TV was added to the CCTS mandate in September of 2017.

“I tried on my own to resolve my problems for months. You resolved it in one week. I got exactly what I wanted, thank you.” – M.H., an internet customer from AB

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 15 2017-18 TOPICS AND TRENDS

In this section we discuss some of the most common types of complaint and code issues we saw in 2017-18 and what we believe may be causing them. We do this to provide consumers with important information about service provider conduct and to give service providers the feedback they need to address these problems. We also highlight issues and practices about which all interested parties should be aware.

TABLE 8: TOP 10 ISSUES RAISED IN COMPLAINTS

2017-18 2016-17

Number % of total Number % of total YoY Issue of issues issues of issues issues change 1 Non-disclosure of terms/ 4,543 14.8% 2,016 10.9% 125.3% Misleading information about terms

2 Incorrect charge 4,370 14.2% 2,333 12.6% 87.3 %

3 Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service 2,573 8.4% 1,413 7.7% 82.1%

4 Legitimacy and amount 1,627 5.3% 1,111 6.0% 46.4% of early cancellation fees

5 Breach of contract 1,575 5.1% 746 4.0% 111.1%

6 30-day cancellation policy/Charges for 1,512 4.9% 783 4.2% 93.1% services not received after cancellation

7 Credit/refund not received 1,379 4.5% 698 3.8% 97.6 %

8 Material contract change 949 3.1% 791 4.3% 20.0%

9 Material contract change without notice 931 3.0% 814 4.4% 14.4%

10 Credit reporting 900 2.9% 592 3.2% 52.0%

For a detailed breakdown of all issues raised in complaints, see Appendix B.

“As soon as the CCTS contacted my service provider they immediately refunded me and cancelled my account. That is what I wanted. Thank you CCTS.” – L.L., a wireless customer from ON

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 16 2017-18 TOPICS AND TRENDS

Internet Internet service delivery issues In 2017-18 customers raised almost 9,000 internet issues, The number of all issues related to the delivery of internet service representing over 29% of all issues raised with the CCTS during increased this year by 77%. the year. In addition, internet issues were raised 56% more often than last year. Customers continue to raise concerns about the quality of their internet service, such as slow speeds or intermittent outages. We are concerned about the pace at which internet issues are Additionally, customers tell us that they experience difficulties increasingly being raised with the CCTS. We discussed this trend cancelling service or changing providers, also contributing to the in last year’s Annual Report. This year, the number of internet overall increase in internet issues. issues continues to increase. Over the last five years, they have increased by more than 170%. By contrast, wireless issues have The top ten service providers with internet service delivery issues increased by only 25% during the same period. accounted for almost 80% of all internet service delivery issues. Also, some of them had an increase of 100% or more since last TABLE 9: INTERNET AND WIRELESS ISSUES year, with one showing an increase of almost 300%. OVER LAST 5 YEARS TABLE 10: PERCENTAGE OF INTERNET SERVICE DELIVERY ISSUES AND YoY CHANGE – TOP 10 SERVICE PROVIDERS r Internet Internet Service 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Change ove last 5 years service service Internet 3,315 5,045 4,177 5,763 8,987 171% delivery delivery issues issues YoY Wireless 10,167 10,214 7,9 31 8,543 12,757 25% Service provider 2017-18 2016-17 change

Bell Canada 733 420 74.5% FIGURE 6: INTERNET AND WIRELESS ISSUES OVER LAST 5 YEARS 328 205 60.0%

Rogers 228 148 54.1% 0 2 8 Connexion 135 38 255.3% 0 130 75 73.3% 1 -12 TekSavvy 118 30 293.3% 0 -17 8 0 TELUS 118 70 68.6% -1 -1 -0 -22 Shaw 98 49 100.0%

201-1 201-1 201-1 201-17 2017-18 Primus 95 46 106.5%

Internet Wireless Bell Aliant 72 58 24.1%

Cogeco and TekSavvy had the largest percentage increases The top five internet issues were: in internet service delivery complaints: 255% for Cogeco and 1. Intermittent and complete loss of service: 18.3% 293% for TekSavvy. We reached out to each of Cogeco and TekSavvy to highlight these concerns so they may address them. 2. Incorrect billing: 15.5% 3. Non-disclosure of information/misleading information: 12.8% 4. Legitimacy and amount of early cancellation fee: 6.5% 5.Charges for services not received after cancellation/30 cancellation policy: 5.9%

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 17 2017-18 TOPICS AND TRENDS

CASE STUDY #1 A customer from Chesterville, ON subscribed to unlimited internet service which required the use of an antenna. During this time, she experienced numerous intermittent internet service issues, which the service provider was not able to resolve despite attempts to fix the problem and make adjustments to her antenna. She was also advised that her specific service was limited to 4 GB of usage per day. After the 4 GB was used, the provider’s Traffic Management Policy specified that internet speed be reduced to 50%. We investigated the matter and reviewed the applicable terms of service. We found that these indeed permitted the provider to reduce the internet speeds by 50% after a customer had used 4 GB of data in a 24-hour period. We also reviewed the customer’s usage records provided by the provider for an 18- month period and found that the customer was regularly exceeding the 4 GB daily usage threshold. Nonetheless, the provider offered the customer CASE STUDY #3 a credit of $220, representing three months’ of service. The A customer in suburban , QC complained customer accepted the provider’s explanation and offer to that, although he signed up for an internet service including a apply a credit, and the complaint was resolved. download speed of 5 Mbps, he had been only receiving around 1.5-1.8 Mbps. He indicated that the service provider’s technicians CASE STUDY #2 attempted several times to resolve the issue, without success: A customer from south-east SK subscribed to they were only able to increase the speed to 4 Mbps for a couple internet service delivered through a satellite system. The service of hours, after which it decreased again. As a resolution, the functioned properly for a few days until the internet speed customer requested that the provider deliver the speed he was decreased, particularly when used for gaming or watching Netflix, paying for and provide a 12-month credit of his monthly fees to two of the customer’s primary uses of the service. During the compensate for the inadequate quality of his internet service. The course of our investigation, the service provider explained that provider determined that, given its infrastructure and considering the customer’s internet service would not be suitable for gaming the location of the customer’s residence, it had provided him with but that it could provide the customer with a different plan that the best possible speed it could provide to him. The provider would increase her bandwidth and also help alleviate some of also pointed out that the customer was not under a contract and the issues experienced when streaming Netflix. The provider that he could cancel at any time without any penalty. In response also informed her that it was planning to install new infrastructure to the customer’s requested resolution, the provider offered to soon that would also make gaming possible. When we further provide the customer with a $10 credit for 12 months to address discussed this matter with the provider, it also agreed to provide the inadequate quality of service. We investigated the complaint, the customer with a credit of $130, covering all installation fees reviewed the provider’s terms of service, confirmed that the incurred, as well as an additional $100 credit on the account. provider had attempted several times to resolve the technical The provider further offered to allow the customer to convert to issues the customer was experiencing and determined that, in this the new infrastructure, once it was ready, without needing to pay context, the resolution offered by the provider was reasonable. The additional installation fees. Nonetheless, should the customer complaint was closed under Section 9.1.f of our Procedural Code. decide to cancel the service, it would not charge her the early cancellation fees that would normally be billed. The customer decided to retain her service with her provider, accepted the KEY MESSAGE credits offered, and the complaint was resolved. With the popularity of online streaming and internet gaming, internet service demands have never been greater. Customers should ensure that they are subscribing for a service that will meet their usage needs. We encourage internet providers to ensure that they fully canvass user needs before recommending the appropriate package of speeds and usage limits.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 18 2017-18 TOPICS AND TRENDS

The number of issues related to the loss of internet service increased by over 83% compared to last year. These issues were Wireless: Overview of issues raised more often than any other issue. We noted a large variety In 2017-18 customers raised almost 13,000 wireless issues, of factors contributing to intermittent and complete loss of service an increase of 49% compared to last year. Customers continue issues that translated into slow speeds: inefficient temporary to raise more issues about wireless service than any other type towers; congestion during peak hours; improper installation; of service. This year, wireless service accounted for over 41% faulty equipment; timeouts; one internet service provider buying of all issues raised. out another provider’s customers, thereby generating more congestion; traffic management policy restrictions; technology The top three wireless issues were: not accommodating a customer’s needs (e.g., higher speeds 1. Non-disclosure: 17.7% required for gaming); and service throttling allegations). 2. Monthly price plan incorrect charge: 9.4% : TABLE 11 PERCENTAGE OF LOSS OF SERVICE 3. Breach of contract: 6.8% INTERNET ISSUES – TOP 10 SERVICE PROVIDERS

% of all Intermittent intermittent Wireless non-disclosure issues and complete and complete loss of internet loss of internet Almost 18% of all issues raised by wireless customers related Service provider service issues service issues to concerns about misleading information or non-disclosure of key terms by a service provider to its customer. Many customers Bell Canada 414 25.2% tell us that they were expecting to pay a certain price for their Xplornet 310 18.8% services only to be billed at a higher rate than agreed. In other cases, customers seemingly were not informed that a price Rogers 160 9.7% discount offered to them was subject to change or conditional on retaining certain other services, resulting in the customer Comwave 79 4.8% having to pay a higher price than expected. Shaw 69 4.2% The issue of non-disclosure seems to be a more common Cogeco Connexion 68 4.1% problem for wireless customers than for other customers. Of all the non-disclosure issues raised across all types of services, half TekSavvy 67 4.1% came from wireless customers. We find this troubling given the TELUS 66 4.0% myriad requirements contained in the Wireless Code aimed at ensuring clear and disclosure of information by service providers Primus 61 3.7% to their customers. Bell Aliant 45 2.7% One Wireless Code section, B1(iii)(a-e), requires service providers to ensure that key contract terms and conditions are disclosed to customers clearly. This section is important because it is All intermittent and complete 1,645 designed to ensure that clear and accurate information is provided loss of internet service issues to customers. It also helps customers to understand the services they have agreed to purchase and clarifies which terms are “key” contract terms, and therefore protected from unilateral change by the service provider.

Unfortunately, this year there was a 114% increase in the number of confirmed breaches of section B1(iii)(a-e) of the Wireless Code. Moreover, this was the second most breached section of the Wireless Code in 2017-18, accounting for over 13% of all confirmed breaches. The only section of the Wireless Code that was breached more often was section E3 (cap on overage charges), which was largely the result of Rogers’ challenges in adapting its systems to the requirements of the Wireless Code.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 19 2017-18 TOPICS AND TRENDS

CASE STUDY #5 A wireless customer from Winnipeg, MB was approached by a customer service representative of a competitor with an offer to switch wireless providers. Before signing up with the new provider, the customer stressed that in future she would likely need to change her monthly wireless plan to one that included unlimited data. The customer service representative stated that all the customer needed to do was contact them to make the proper change when she was ready to upgrade her plan. However, when the customer called to make the change five months later, she was informed there was no plan that included unlimited data. The customer then requested to cancel her service so she could return the device and return to her former provider, but she was advised she would need to pay $600 to be released from her contract, which she refused to do.

CASE STUDY #4 The customer filed a complaint with the CCTS, asking to be A customer from Langley, BC received an offer from released from the contract so she could return to her previous her service provider of a new mobile device which included wireless provider. During our investigation, we asked the current a device protection plan. The customer paid $280 for the device provider to give us a copy of the customer’s contract. While and believed she was on a month-to-month agreement. As part reviewing the contract, we found that the provider failed to of the device protection plan, the customer said that she was include the details of the customer’s commitment period and supposed to receive a new device if her device needed repair the early cancellation fees, as is required by the Wireless Code. or replacement. However, upon experiencing a problem with We therefore asked the provider to release the customer from her device, she received a refurbished device. She then tried to her contract without penalty, which it agreed to do, and the cancel her service but was advised she would incur a $500 early complaint was resolved. termination fee because she was ending her 24-month agreement early. She complained to the CCTS, informing us that she did CASE STUDY #6 not agree to a 24-month agreement. She wanted her provider to A customer from Kelowna, BC signed up for a two-year waive the outstanding balance on her account and let her keep contract for wireless service. He explained to his the device. She also wanted to be reimbursed the money she service provider that he would need data to use while abroad had paid to obtain the device protection plan because it did not in Germany and said he was assured he could use his 10 GB provide her with a new device, as she was led to believe it would. data feature in Europe for $10/day. However, he subsequently was billed $800 in data charges. When he disputed the charges, During our investigation, the provider submitted copies of the a customer service representative advised him to cancel his customer’s account notes to demonstrate what had transpired account to avoid incurring other charges, which he did. The during the phone call in which the customer agreed to the customer then found out that he was also billed early termination accept the new device. We found that the provider had failed to charges for having cancelled the service. When he later tried inform the customer that by accepting the new device she was to dispute the data charges and the early cancellation fees, consenting to a 24-month service agreement. The provider also he was told they were valid, and his provider refused to credit acknowledged that it had failed to provide the customer with a them. During our investigation, we discussed the matter with the permanent copy of the contract and related documents within provider and could not determine whether the customer had in 15 calendar days of the customer agreeing to the contract, as fact been told that he could use his data while in Germany for required by the Wireless Code. We therefore found that the $10/day. However, when we reviewed the account notes we provider had failed to disclose to the customer that she was found that the customer was notified that he was incurring extra bound to a 24-month agreement, that early cancellation fees data charges and that he had agreed to purchase more data would be applicable if the service was cancelled early, and that and incur additional charges, as required by the Wireless Code. the provider was in breach of the requirements of the Wireless Nonetheless, in an effort to resolve the complaint, the provider Code. The provider offered to cancel the customer’s agreement agreed to credit the customer for the early termination and late without charge and to reimburse her for the cost of the device payment fees of approximately $685. The customer agreed to protection plan in the amount of $99.99, an offer that the CCTS accept the credit, and the complaint was resolved. felt was reasonable to resolve the complaint.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 20 2017-18 TOPICS AND TRENDS

Non-disclosure issues for all types of service The increase in the number of non-disclosure issues is not just an issue for wireless customers. Internet, phone and TV customers report that they are also experiencing significant challenges in obtaining clear, accurate and timely information about their services. Concerns about service providers’ failure to disclose important information was the top issue raised by customers across all types of service in 2017-18, accounting for almost 15% of all issues raised. Also, the number of non-disclosure issues raised (4,543) was 125% more than last year.

TABLE 12: NON-DISCLOSURE ISSUES BY TYPE OF SERVICE AND YoY CHANGES – TOP 5 SERVICE PROVIDERS

Bell Canada Rogers Videotron Virgin Mobile TELUS

disclosure issues disclosure issues disclosure issues disclosure issues disclosure issues disclosure issues disclosure issues disclosure issues disclosure issues

Service Number of non-disclosure issues % of all non- YoY change Number of non- % of all non- YoY change Number of non- % of all non- YoY change Number of non- % of all non- YoY change Number of non- % of all non- YoY change

Wireless 637 14.0% 82.0% 307 6.8% 74.4% 141 3.1% 182.0% 296 6.5% 88.5% 191 4.2% 81.9%

Internet 489 10.8% 97.2% 87 1.9% 29.9% 90 2.0% 200.0% 10 0.2% 150.0% 61 1.3% 125.9%

Local phone 338 7.4% 107.4% 34 0.8% 70.0% 57 1.3% 216.7% 0 0.0% – 14 0.3% 16.7%

Long distance 22 0.5% 144.4% 2 0.0% 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 0.0% 100.0% 1 0.0% 0.0%

TV* 242 5.3% – 24 0.5% – 54 1.2% – 0 0.0% – 31 0.7% –

TOTAL 1,728 38.0% 124.4% 454 10.0% 71.3% 343 7.6% 246.5% 307 6.8% 90.7% 298 6.6% 105.5%

*TV was added to the CCTS mandate in September of 2017.

Bell Canada accounts for 38% of all nondisclosure issues raised, followed by Rogers at just under 10%.

CASE STUDY #7 A customer from Saint-Charles-Borromée, QC agreed KEY MESSAGE to a bundle of services for home phone, internet and TV. The mismatch between what a customer is expecting A service provider representative told him the price of the package from their service subscription, and what they actually would never increase. A few months later, the customer received receive, is a frequent cause of complaints. In some cases, a notice that the price would increase by $4 per month. During the we see a conflict between what an agreement or contract CCTS investigation, we obtained a chat log between the customer actually says and what the customer believes they were and his provider, and confirmed that the agent had clearly promised told and agreed to. In other cases, the mismatch is the customer he would have this rate “forever.” This information was caused by non-disclosure (or ineffective disclosure) of clearly wrong because the provider’s terms of service allow for it important contractual terms, particularly on issues such to increase its monthly prices. Based on these findings, the CCTS as the provider’s right to make unilateral changes to an informed the provider that we expected it to maintain the price aspect of the service or the price, including time limits quoted to the customer ($117.85 per month) for 24 months because associated with offers and promotions. We hope that this is what the customer would have obtained had he been under increased focus, on the disclosure requirements of the a fixed 2-year term contract. We advised the customer about these Wireless Code and the TVSP Code (and better record- findings and informed him that the provider had offered to apply keeping) as well as other similar requirements imposed a one-time credit of $360, covering a maximum price increase for by the CRTC to ensure clear and timely disclosure of key two years. However, the customer rejected the offer and withdrew information to customers will help to reduce the number the complaint, with the intent to explore other options. of non-disclosure issues raised by customers.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 21 2017-18 TOPICS AND TRENDS

Incorrect charges: monthly price plan Another trend in 2017-18 was a large increase in the number of times customers raised concerns about being incorrectly charged for their monthly price plan. A total of 4,370 such issues were raised, representing an 87% YoY increase. This is the second-most raised issue in our complaints, accounting for 14% of all issues raised, and is increasingly a larger proportion of all issues raised.

FIGURE 7: PROPORTION OF MONTHLY PRICE PLAN INCORRECT CHARGE ISSUES, YoY

1 1 1 1 12 10 8 2 CASE STUDY #8 0 A customer from Laval, QC agreed to obtain a bundle 201-1 201-17 2017-18 of services, including home phone, internet and TV, for $111 per month. She called her service provider to complain, informing it that she was being billed $131 per month. The These complaints about incorrect charges happen most often provider informed her that she was not eligible for the offer when a customer is billed differently from what the customer priced at $111 per month, so she contacted the CCTS, asking believes was agreed to at the point of sale, usually in relation us to help ensure that the provider bill her the amount she had to their monthly price plan. There is probably a connection agreed to pay or allow her to cancel her services without penalty. between the challenges we see regarding the accurate and We accepted her complaint and asked the provider to take timely disclosure of key information to customers and resulting another look at it. The complaint was resolved to the customer’s billing disputes such as these. satisfaction when the provider agreed to bill her only $111 per month for the next twelve months and also provided her with an TABLE 13: MONTHLY PRICE PLAN INCORRECT additional credit of $70 as a gesture of goodwill. The customer – CHARGE ISSUES TOP 3 SERVICE PROVIDERS was satisfied with the resolution, and the complaint was resolved. # of % of all incorrect incorrect % of all CASE STUDY #9 charge charge accepted A customer in central QC complained to his wireless Service provider issues issues complaints service provider that he had been billed more for his wireless service than he had agreed to pay. After numerous Bell Canada 2,088 47.8 % 33.2% attempts to fix the problem with his provider, he continued to be incorrectly charged and made a complaint to the CCTS. During Videotron 487 11.1% 5.2% our investigation, we found that the customer was supposed to Rogers 466 10.7% 10.2% be receiving a discount of 30% from his regular monthly price but that this discount had not been applied, resulting in the customer being billed more than agreed on. In discussing the matter with Bell accounts for almost half of the monthly price plan incorrect the provider, it confirmed that the credit had not been properly charge issues raised, a disproportionate amount considering applied and corrected the matter by adjusting his bills to reflect that it accounts for only a third of all complaints. Videotron was the correct monthly charge and by providing the customer the second leading service provider about which this issue was with an additional credit of $150 in light of the inconvenience raised, accounting for just over 11%, also a disproportionate this matter caused him. The customer was satisfied with this amount considering that it accounts for only 5% of all complaints. outcome, and the complaint was resolved.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 22 2017-18 TOPICS AND TRENDS

CASE STUDY #10 An internet customer from Pierrefonds, QC complained to the CCTS that she had been billed $12.50 per month KEY MESSAGE for an “unlimited internet” feature that she never requested. The We see numerous complaints each year in which unlimited internet feature was an add-on that was billed in addition customers complain that they were promised to the cost of the customer’s monthly internet service and that something by their provider (usually a specific price or increased the customer’s data allotment by up to 60 GB per service) and are upset when they don’t receive it. We month. The customer requested that her service provider issue investigate and sometimes find evidence that confirms a number of credits to her account totaling approximately $600. what was promised to them. We urge service providers to ensure careful review of all of the terms of offers During our investigation, the provider submitted evidence they make to their customers, and careful recording demonstrating that the customer had indeed requested the of the details, to help alleviate misunderstandings. We unlimited internet add-on feature, which had been on the also suggest that providers empower their personnel customer’s account since 2015. The CCTS also found that the to carefully review their internal records when dealing customer’s internet usage was high, averaging about 210 GB with customers with this type of complaint. When per month for each of the last three months. We explained to the provider’s account notes confirm that something the customer that the information submitted by the provider was offered to a customer, the provider should stand indicated she had requested this unlimited internet add-on for behind its offer and do the right thing for its customer. $12.50 per month. In addition, we informed her that had the These customers should not be forced to pursue their unlimited internet feature not been on the account, she would complaints with the CCTS in these “open and shut” have incurred about $1,800 in internet usage overage charges cases. And when the records support the service during the last three months alone. Although disappointed that provider’s position, it should not hesitate to share them she did not receive the credits on her account she was seeking, with the customer. she thanked the CCTS for looking into the matter to ensure she had not been incorrectly billed by her provider, and the complaint was concluded.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 23 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS

In this section, we present the results for those service providers that have been the subject of the greatest number of complaints. We also discuss some of the challenges we have faced working with service providers, including those related to compliance with their obligations.

TABLE 14: TOP 25 PSPs BY COMPLAINTS ACCEPTED

(9% overall) plaints f all complaints all f n complaints complaints n YoY % change YoY i Service provider Accepted complaints Percentage o accepted Concluded com rate Resolution (% of all resolved complaints vs. all concluded; 92% overall) Escalation rate (% of all escalated complaints vs. all concluded; 20% overall) % of escalations escalated due to 6.6 of Procedural Code Bell Canada 4,734 33.2% 45.8% 4,281 91.3% 22.9% 0.1% Rogers 1,449 10.2% 34.4% 1,407 89.1% 15.8% 2.2% TELUS 944 6.6% 49.6% 901 92.2% 13.7% 1.6% 850 6.0% 185.2% 730 95.6% 24.5% 3.9% Virgin Mobile 847 5.9% 39.3% 827 95.8% 18.4% 0.0% Videotron 740 5.2% 113.9% 696 93.4% 14.5% 3.0% Fido 650 4.6% 42.9% 619 89.8% 15.8% 3.1% Cogeco Connexion 546 3.8% 358.8% 340 94.7% 15.0% 35.3% Xplornet 378 2.6% 47.7% 379 93.1% 19.3% 2.7% Koodo 360 2.5% 36.9% 336 88.7% 15.5% 0.0% Shaw 337 2.4% 111.9% 315 94.9% 14.9% 4.3% Comwave 302 2.1% 34.8% 302 96.0% 7.9 % 37.5% Bell Aliant 229 1.6% 77.5% 218 93.6% 15.1% 3.0% Primus 181 1.3% 28.4% 193 93.8% 16.6% 25.0% 159 1.1% 87.1% 153 77.1% 44.4% 2.9% 142 1.0% 36.5% 141 94.3% 14.9% 0.0% Bell MTS 135 0.9% 95.7% 141 92.9% 6.4% 0.0% 129 0.9% 108.1% 135 91.1% 9.6% 0.0% TekSavvy 112 0.8% 103.6% 116 94.8% 12.1% 21.4% Acanac 66 0.5% 61.0% 48 93.8% 39.6% 68.4% ACN Canada 53 0.4% -17.2% 63 92.1% 15.9% 0.0% Distributel 46 0.3% 76.9% 44 88.6% 25.0% 45.5% Speak Out Wireless (7-11) 37 0.3% 37.0 % 41 92.7% 63.4% 42.3% Sasktel 36 0.3% 16.1% 38 92.1% 15.8% 0.0% Vonage 36 0.3% -40.0% 38 100.0% 68.4% 84.6%

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 24 2017-18 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS

Top 10 PSP profiles

BELL

• This year, Bell saw a 45.8% increase in the number of • Bell also recorded the second highest YoY increase in the complaints accepted. Bell accounted for 33.3% of all number of non-disclosure issues, up 124.4%. This complaint accepted complaints, a decrease from last year’s 35.7%. category had the largest YoY increase overall (125.3%).

• The number of issues related to incorrect monthly price plan • Bell’s confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code (23) increased charges increased by 50%. Bell accounted for 47.8% of all by 21.1%, representing 20.7% of the total number of the incorrect monthly price plan charge issues, a category that Wireless Code confirmed breaches for all PSPs (i.e., 111). saw the second biggest increase (87.3%) in all the complaints concluded this year.

ACCEPTED CONCLUDED 4,734 COMPLAINTS 4,281 COMPLAINTS Up by 45.8% resolved at 3,202 pre-investigation of all 33.2% complaints resolved at 706 investigation TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED

Incorrect charge (2,088) unresolved/ Non-disclosure of terms/Misleading 373 closed information about terms (1,728 ) 30-day cancellation policy/ TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Charges billed after cancellation (794) Further investigation not warranted (130) Customer not cooperative (102) Service provider offer is reasonable (86) 23 Wireless Code breaches 20.7% of all Wireless Code breaches

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 25 2017-18 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS

ROGERS

• The number of Rogers complaints accepted increased by • Rogers breaches of the Wireless Code (44) increased 34.4% (YoY). Rogers’ complaints represent 10.2% of the total by 76%. This accounts for 39.6% of the total number of number of complaints accepted this year, slightly less than Wireless Code breaches for all PSPs. We saw an increase last year’s 11.8%. (212.5%, from 8 to 25) in the number of confirmed breaches of section E. “Bill Management,” mainly related to the • We saw a 76.5% increase in the number of incorrect monthly application of the data cap provisions. plan charges (up to 466 this year). Also, mostly driven by a 53.9% increase in the number of intermittent/inadequate quality of service issues, Rogers’ service delivery issues in general went up to 19.4% (from 16.6% last year).

ACCEPTED CONCLUDED 1,449 COMPLAINTS 1,407 COMPLAINTS Up by 34.4% resolved at 1,124 pre-investigation of all 10.2% complaints resolved at 129 investigation TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED

Incorrect charge (466) unresolved/ Non-disclosure of terms/Misleading 154 closed information about terms (454) Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service (257) TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Customer not cooperative (52) Further investigation not warranted (35) 44 Wireless Code breaches Service provider offer is reasonable (33) 39.6% of all Wireless Code breaches

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 26 2017-18 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS

TELUS

• TELUS complaints increased by almost 50% this year • With a total of 10 confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code, (from 631 to 944). TELUS accounted for 6.6% of all accepted TELUS’ proportion of all Wireless Code breaches declined complaints, a slight decrease from last year’s 6.9%. from almost 20% last year to 9% this year. The most significant decrease (71.4%, from 7 to 2) was related to • We noted an increase in the number of contract dispute Section I. “Disconnection,” involving breaches of the Wireless issues in TELUS complaints (up to 31.9% from 27.2% last Code obligations related to 14-day and 24-hour notices prior year), but a decrease in complaints about billing issues to disconnection/suspension. (down to 40.4% from 44.6% last year).

ACCEPTED CONCLUDED 944 COMPLAINTS 901 COMPLAINTS Up by 49.6% resolved at 757 pre-investigation of all 6.6% complaints resolved at 74 investigation TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED

Non-disclosure of terms/Misleading unresolved/ information about terms (298) 70 closed Incorrect charge (191) Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service (144) TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Further investigation not warranted (27) Customer not cooperative (12) 10 Wireless Code breaches Service provider offer is reasonable (11) 9% of all Wireless Code breaches

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 27 2017-18 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS

FREEDOM MOBILE

• Complaints about Freedom increased this year by 185% quality of service, a category that increased by 170% (from 298 to 850). Freedom accounted for 6% of all this year. Freedom also had an almost 190% YoY increase accepted complaints, an increase from last year’s 3.3%. in contract dispute issues.

• The proportion of Freedom’s issues that related to service • The number of confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code delivery declined slightly, from 29.9% last year to 28.4%. changed only slightly, from 6 to 7, with only minor changes Again this year, the most frequently-raised issue by in the distribution by sections of the Wireless Code. Freedom’s customers related to intermittent/inadequate

ACCEPTED CONCLUDED 850 COMPLAINTS 730 COMPLAINTS Up by 185.2% resolved at 543 pre-investigation of all 6.0% complaints resolved at 155 investigation TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED

Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service (216) unresolved/ Non-disclosure of terms/Misleading 32 closed information about terms (211) Breach of contract (105) TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Further investigation not warranted (13) Service provider offer is reasonable (9) 7 Wireless Code breaches Customer not cooperative (7) 6.3% of all Wireless Code breaches

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 28 2017-18 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS

VIRGIN MOBILE

• This year, complaints about Virgin Mobile increased • Virgin Mobile’s complaints showed an almost 63% YoY by almost 40%. Virgin Mobile’s complaints account increase in contract dispute issues, though its overall number for 5.9% of all accepted complaints, a slight decrease of billing issues decreased by slightly over 3% this year. compared to 6.7% last year. • Virgin Mobile’s number of confirmed breaches of the Wireless Code increased by 233% this year, from 3 to 10, which amounts to 9% of the total number of all Wireless Code breaches.

ACCEPTED CONCLUDED 847 COMPLAINTS 827 COMPLAINTS Up by 39.3% resolved at 673 pre-investigation of all 5.9% complaints resolved at 119 investigation TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED

Non-disclosure of terms/Misleading unresolved/ information about terms (307) 35 closed Data charges (164) Incorrect charge (156) TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Further investigation not warranted (18) Service provider offer is reasonable (7) 10 Wireless Code breaches Customer not cooperative (6) 9.0% of all Wireless Code breaches

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 29 2017-18 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS

VIDEOTRON

• We accepted nearly 114% more complaints from increased by 11.1%. However, the proportion of billing-related Videotron customers this year (740). Videotron’s complaints problems in Videotron’s complaints went slightly down this account for 5.2% of all accepted complaints, an increase year (from 49.5% to 48.3%). from last year’s 3.8%. • We confirmed 3 breaches of the Wireless Code this year • The most significant increase in the issues identified in (none last year), one in each of the following sections: B. Videotron complaints was the contract disputes category, “Contracts and related documents,” E. “Bill management” which went up to 40.2%, from 30.4% last year. Videotron’s and G. “Contract cancellation and extension.” number of incorrect monthly price plan charge issues

ACCEPTED CONCLUDED 740 COMPLAINTS 696 COMPLAINTS Up by 113.9% resolved at 587 pre-investigation of all 5.2% complaints resolved at 63 investigation TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED

Incorrect charge (487) unresolved/ Non-disclosure of terms/Misleading 46 closed information about terms (343) Breach of contract (153) TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Further investigation not warranted (18) Customer not cooperative (12) 3 Wireless Code breaches Service provider offer is reasonable (6) 2.7% of all Wireless Code breaches

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 30 2017-18 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS

FIDO

• Fido complaints increased by almost 43% this year. Fido • Service delivery issues declined from 14.9% to 12.9%. accounted for 4.6% of all accepted complaints this year, a slight decrease from last year’s 5%. • Fido complaints disclosed a 200% increase in Wireless Code breaches (9 in total). One-third of Fido’s breaches related to • The issue raised most frequently by Fido customers was non- the application of the Code’s data cap provisions. disclosure (up to 17.2%, from 14.2% last year). Billing issues increased somewhat, to 36.6% this year (from 33.3% last year).

ACCEPTED CONCLUDED 650 COMPLAINTS 619 COMPLAINTS Up by 42.9% resolved at 497 pre-investigation of all 4.6% complaints resolved at 59 investigation TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED

Non-disclosure of terms/Misleading unresolved/ information about terms (209) 63 closed Incorrect charge (130) Data charges (83) TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Customer not cooperative (26) Further investigation not warranted (13) 9 Wireless Code breaches Service provider offer is reasonable (12) 8.1% of all Wireless Code breaches

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 31 2017-18 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS

COGECO

• Complaints about Cogeco increased by over 358% time, complaints raising billing issues represented a this year, representing 3.8% of all accepted complaints declining portion of Cogeco’s issues, down to 31.1% this (up from 1.3% last year). year (from 44.8%).

• Cogeco complaints raising service delivery issues increased • Although the number of Cogeco complaints about internet by more than 500%, representing 41.2 % of all Cogeco declined this year, at the number of internet service delivery complaint issues (up from 27.6% last year). At the same issues did increase this year by 255.5% (up to 135 this year).

ACCEPTED CONCLUDED 546 COMPLAINTS 340 COMPLAINTS Up by 358.8% resolved at 278 pre-investigation

of all 3.8% complaints resolved at 44 investigation

unresolved/ 18 closed TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Incorrect charge (109) Customer not cooperative (11) Complete loss of service (96) Service provider offer is reasonable (3) Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service (87) Further investigation not warranted (2) and Withdrawn (2)

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 32 2017-18 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS

XPLORNET

• This year, we saw a 47.7% increase in the number of • Service delivery problems were identified in complaints 62% accepted complaints. Xplornet’s complaints accounted more often this year (up to 343 from 212), mostly driven by an for 2.6% of all accepted complaints. increase in intermittent/inadequate quality of service issues, which went up by 81%.

ACCEPTED CONCLUDED 378 COMPLAINTS 379 COMPLAINTS Up by 47.7% resolved at 293 pre-investigation of all 2.6% complaints resolved at 60 investigation

TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED unresolved/ closed Intermittent/Inadequate 26 quality of service (304) TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Legitimacy and amount of early cancellation fees (74) Customer not cooperative (13) Non-disclosure of terms/Misleading Service provider offer is reasonable (5) information about terms (73) Further investigation not warranted (4)

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 33 2017-18 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS

KOODO

• This year, we accepted nearly 37% more complaints from • Non-disclosure issues in Koodo complaints (96) more than Koodo customers, accounting for 2.5% of all accepted doubled this year. complaints; this is a slight decrease from last year’s 2.9%. • Last year, Koodo had 11 confirmed breaches of the Wireless • Billing issues decreased, representing 43% of all Koodo Code; this year it had none. issues (down from 50.1% last year).

ACCEPTED CONCLUDED 360 COMPLAINTS 336 COMPLAINTS Up by 36.9% resolved at 272 pre-investigation of all 2.5% complaints resolved at 26 investigation TOP 3 ISSUES RAISED

Non-disclosure of terms/Misleading unresolved/ information about terms (96) 38 closed Credit reporting (72) Incorrect charge (50) TOP 3 REASONS FOR CLOSURES Further investigation not warranted (17) Customer not cooperative (15) No Wireless Code breaches Service provider offer is reasonable (3)

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 34 2017-18 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS

TABLE 15: SERVICE PROVIDERS FAILING Compliance TO JOIN THE CCTS WHEN REQUIRED The CRTC requires companies that provide retail telecommunications services in Canada as well as licensed As of July 31, 2018 the following service providers were TV service providers to participate in the CCTS. Some service non-compliant with the regulatory obligation to sign up providers (typically small providers or new entrants to the business) with the CCTS: do not currently participate. Their obligation to do so is triggered when one of their customers files a complaint with the CCTS. • Collect To Cell • Cybernet Communications We do everything in our power to get these service providers to • Golden Rural High Speed sign up, and we’re generally successful. This year it took us, on • MySignal.ca average, 26 days to locate, contact and sign up a new provider. The CRTC’s objective for this process is 30 days, but we’re not • Pure Channel Communication able to sign up every service provider within 30 days. • Redbox Solution Limited • SkyNet Data Networks Inc. In 2017-18 we signed up 51 new service providers. However, • St-François Telecom some providers refuse to join the CCTS. If we’re unable to • Total Cable persuade them to follow the rules and become a PSP, we refer the matter to the CRTC for further action. • WISP Inc.

We publicize the identities of these providers throughout the year on our Non-compliant Providers web page.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 35 2017-18 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS

Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program On February 1, 2018 the CCTS began to monitor and audit PSPs to obtain confirmation of compliance with the requirements of participation: disclosure of their eligible retail revenues; telling their customers about the CCTS (as required by the CCTS Public Awareness Plan); following the rules for investigating complaints; and paying their fees to the CCTS. We did this by requiring them to complete and return our Annual Compliance Certification (ACC) form.

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE OF REVENUES We sent compliance certification forms to each service provider and asked them to return a separate form for each brand under which they offer service to the public. We also required them to provide certification of their revenues because we need this information for the administration of our funding formula.

Annual Compliance Certification (ACC) forms are required for each brand. As of July 31, 2018, 245 of 304 forms had been completed and returned to us, a compliance rate of 80.6%.

TABLE 16: PSPs NON-COMPLIANT ON JULY 31, 2018 WITH REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT ACC FORMS

Accelerated Connections Contact Internet Nor-Del Telecom Skydata ALO Telecom Inc. Digicom Internet sans fil NorthWind Wireless Smart Telecom Allo Telecom* Digicom Sans Fil* OneConnect Springtel Avenue DMTS* OnStar* Communications Inc. BabyTel Epik Networks Owtel Store Inc. Switchworks BlueTone G3 Wireless Parolink. Syban Systems Ltd. Brightroam Infosat Communications Ph onebox Talkit.ca Inc. Bravo Telecom InnSys Incorporated Phone Power* Tel-Synergy Cable Cable Inc.* Internet Papineau PWHR Solutions Thinktel* Canada Payphone Jive Communications* Quantum Xpress Computers Telecom* Canada Relink KMTS* Quinte Long Distance United Online, Inc. Canopco My BC Datacom Securenet Information VBuzzer™ CaspianWave TSP Inc. NECC Services Inc. VoIP Much Phone Company Inc. City Wide NetReach Simcoe County LD Vox Sun Communications Inc. Netscape SkyChoice Communications Inc. Xinflix CompuXellence Nophone.ca

* These brands submitted the required ACC form after July 31, 2018.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 36 2017-18 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS

Certification of retail revenues is required from PSPs (legal entities, not brands), including service providers that were required to join the CCTS during the year but failed to do so. In 2017-18 we sent 231 forms for completion. As of July 31, 2018, 182 forms had been returned, a compliance rate of 78.8%. 49 PSPs failed to provide their Certification of Retail Revenues (CRR) forms.

TABLE 17: PSPs NON-COMPLIANT WITH REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT CRR FORMS ON JULY 31, 2018

159272 Canada Inc. Connex Global Nobel Canada Telecom Inc.* St-Francois telecom (o/a Securenet) Communications Inc. Nor-Del Limited Switchworks 2343842 Inc. Cybernet Communications Primus Management ULC Technologies Inc. (o/a Smart Telecom) EspaceNet* (f ormerly Primus Syban Systems Ltd. 9045-2855 Québec Inc. Falcon Internet Services Inc.* Telecommunications Talkit.ca Inc. (o/a Digicom)* (Canada) Inc.)* Freedom Phone Lines Telizon Inc. Accelerated Pure Channel Connections Inc. Gold Leaf Telecom Ltd. Communication Tel-Synergy AEI Internet Inc. Golden Rural High Speed PWHR Solutions Total Cable AOL Canada Corp Groupe Negotel Inc. Quality Speaks LLC United Online, Inc. BabyTel Infosat Communications (Phone Power)* VoIP Much Phone Company Inc. BlueTone InnSys Incorporated Redbox Solution Vox Sun Bravo Telecom* Jive Communications SkyChoice Technology Canada Ltd. Communications Inc. Wisp Inc. Cable Cable Inc. My BC Datacom Ltd. SkyNet Data Networks Inc. XinFlix Media Inc. Canada Relink MySignal.ca Solutions Inc. Springtel CaspianWave TSP Inc. NECC Telecom Communications Inc. Collect To Cell

* These PSPs submitted the required CRR form after July 31, 2018.

“I must say that my service provider was a lot more receptive to my problems once the CCTS was involved. Thank you so much.” – M.H., a home phone customer from NS

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 37 2017-18 WORKING WITH PARTICIPATING SERVICE PROVIDERS

TELLING THEIR CUSTOMERS ABOUT THE CCTS The number of these issues is cause for concern. Although All service providers are required as part of their internal complaint- we do our best to ensure that issues impacting customers with handling process to make their customers aware of the CCTS’ complaints are addressed right away as part of our investigation, impartial and complaint resolution service. An audit of this is a large number of violations in just seven months. The compliance by select providers is planned and will be reported failure by service providers to provide timely responses to at a later date. unresolved complaints, to include with those responses the documents necessary for CCTS to conduct its investigation, FOLLOWING THE RULES FOR or to respond promptly to subsequent requests for additional INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS information, make up almost half of these issues. These failings All service providers are bound by the CCTS Procedural Code, create needless delays for consumers and needless work for which means they are expected to cooperate with the CCTS when the CCTS and service providers. customers file complaints. Among the key requirements are: We urge service providers to pay attention to these issues and • responding to complaints filed with the CCTS within ensure that their internal processes and staffing are appropriate defined time periods and providing information or to comply with these requirements. Future CCTS reporting on documentation as requested this topic, as we obtain more data on these issues, may include identification of individual service providers and the extent to • cooperating in good faith throughout the investigation process which they are individually in breach of these requirements.

• carrying out resolutions to which they agreed and any binding PAYING THEIR FEES remedies imposed by the CCTS The CCTS is funded by its PSPs based on a complex formula. We bill them quarterly and they are required to pay their fees Between January and July of 2018 the CCTS identified within 30 days. Some service providers are in breach of the over 400 alleged violations by service providers of various requirement to pay their fees, and the CCTS will be referring Procedural Code requirements. a number of them for collection activity. : TABLE 18 ALLEGED PROCEDURAL CODE VIOLATIONS AllCore COMMUNICATIONS AllCore is a service provider in Hamilton ON that became a Issue and Procedural Percentage Code section Number of all issues CCTS participant in April of 2017. In 2018 AllCore agreed to resolve a complaint by providing a refund to a customer who Section 7: PSP failed to had complained to the CCTS, but it failed to do so. It also failed refrain from proceeding 209 41.8% to implement a binding Recommendation made in another with collections activity complaint. The CCTS worked hard to communicate with AllCore and explain what AllCore needed to do to remedy its violations Section 6.6: PSP failed to of our rules (which included failure to file its annual certification provide complete response 153 30.6% forms, its revenue declaration, and to pay outstanding fees owing or did not respond to the CCTS). AllCore did not respond. As a result, on August Section 15: PSP failed 2, 2018 the CCTS expelled AllCore from participation. Because to provide information/ AllCore is required by the CRTC to participate in the CCTS, this 81 16.2% expulsion put AllCore in breach of its regulatory responsibilities assistance for complaint and the CCTS notified the CRTC. investigation * In October of 2018, AllCore remedied its non-compliance and was readmitted to participation in the CCTS.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 38 WORKING WITH CUSTOMERS

Our Annual and Mid-year Reports are provided in PDF versions Introduction that are tagged for accessibility, to help optimize the reading We’re always looking for ways to help customers find out about experience for those who use screen readers and other our complaint-handling process and make it easier for them to assistive technology. access our services. This section discusses our activities and results in 2017-18. At the request of the CRTC, we have also implemented a process to track accessibility-related issues that appear in customer complaints.

Website For more information about our policies and guidelines, We know that our website is a key tool for helping customers see our Accessibility web page. find us. Our customer surveys tell us that 32% of customers report first learning about the CCTS through an online search. Customer survey results We also know that our website is a focus for customers who want to file complaints. In 2017-18, 81% of the complaints We survey customers who use our service for two reasons: we accepted were filed by customers using the “Submit a • to get their impressions of the work we do, so we can focus Complaint” interactive questionnaire on our website. our efforts for improvement There were close to 290,000 website visits this year, an increase • to attempt to measure the success of the public awareness of 64% from last year. There was also a corresponding increase initiatives we undertake with service providers in the use of the “Submit a Complaint” interactive questionnaire, which peaked at 20,000 sessions last year but at 50,000 this year. The results are based on almost 3,700 responses. We thank the customers who took the time to participate in the survey and share their views. The results for these survey questions show Accessibility very little change from previous years’ results. The CCTS has always been mindful of its responsibility to be Numbers for all results were rounded. responsive to the diverse needs of the public and to provide everyone with an equal opportunity to use our services. Providing WHAT CUSTOMERS SAID ABOUT THE CCTS accessible customer service so that persons with disabilities We asked our customers: can reach us easily and make use of our processes is one of Was it easy to file your complaint with the CCTS? our core values. We provide customer service in a manner that accommodates persons with disabilities and reflects the principles of independence, dignity, integration and equality of opportunity. 82

We conduct annual consultations with groups representing 1 Canadians with disabilities. Based on their feedback from last year, our two new videos that explain what is the CCTS and how the CCTS works are closed captioned and have an American Sign Language/langue des signes Québécoise (ASL/LSQ) version. Somewhat No We have also performed an accessibility analysis of our website to ensure that current content plus any new content added meets Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. As a result, we are adjusting some website features for better accessibility. We intend to perform an accessibility analysis every two years to ensure ongoing website accessibility.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 39 2017-18 WORKING WITH CUSTOMERS

We asked our customers to provide feedback on whether Finally, we asked our customers about their overall sense the service they received from our Contact Centre agents of satisfaction with various aspects of our process. met expectations in certain important respects.

87

P 11 A 2

8 81

11 12 T

7

8 1

10 P

8 Yes Somewhat No

8 We also asked our customers about important elements of the service they received from our Complaints Resolution Officers and Investigators. 80

11 2 P

P

Yes Somewhat No 8

11

80 “The CCTS was very prompt in responding to my complaint and they expedited the resolution in a very timely, satisfactory manner.” 11 – A.S., a TV customer from ON

Yes Somewhat No

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 40 2017-18 WORKING WITH CUSTOMERS

WHAT CUSTOMERS SAID ABOUT SERVICE Service providers have committed to notify customers about PROVIDER PUBLIC AWARENESS ACTIVITIES CCTS during their internal complaint-handling process. We We asked our customers how they first found out about the asked our customers whether their service provider told them CCTS. Our customers said: about the CCTS during their efforts to resolve the problem. Our customers said: 2 12 2 88 17

12 Yes No 8

Service providers are required to print a prescribed message about the CCTS on customer bills four times a year. We asked our customers whether they’ve ever seen the notice on any of their bills. Our customers said:

Web search Notice on bill 1 The CRTC A consumer group/agency 8 A friend, colleague Other or family member Media or other Public Forum Yes No

BREAKDOWN OF “OTHER” Service providers have committed to placing a prescribed notice about the CCTS in a reasonably prominent place on their web sites, and to include a link to our website. We asked our customers whether they’d seen it. Our customers said:

11

8

2

Yes No

A service provider Other/don’t recall Already knew Bank or about CCTS credit card company

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 41 STATISTICAL REPORTS

Contact Centre activities Our Contact Centre received over 110,000 communications by telephone, in writing and by online chat.

TABLE 19: COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED

Type 2017-18 % change

Total written correspondence 44,937 33%

Total phone calls answered 62,023 8%

Total chat sessions answered 3,494 134%

The total written correspondence includes use of our online interactive questionnaire. This information, combined with the modest increase in phone calls and the 134% increase in chat sessions, suggests that the telephone is being replaced by online communications.

Out-of-mandate issues The following tables show the number of issues raised by customers that the CCTS could not accept in 2017-18, broken down by the reason they could not be accepted.

TABLE 20: PROCEDURAL CODE SECTION 3 AND OTHER

Issue Number Issue Number

Section 3.1(a)(i) Internet applications/content 409 Section 3.1(c)(ii) Inside wiring 14 Section 3.1(a)(ii) Emergency services 57 Section 3.1(c)(iii) Security services 230 Section 3.1(a)(iii) Payphones 64 Section 3.1(c)(iv) Networking services 136 Section 3.1(a)(iv) Yellow pages/business directories 66 Section 3.1(c)(v) Pricing 1,244 Section 3.1(a)(v) Telemarketing/unsolicited messages 844 Section 3.1(c)(vi) Rights of way 174 Section 3.1(a)(vi) 900/976 calls 90 Section 3.1(c)(vii) Plant/poles/towers 749 Section 3.1(b)(i) Digital Media Broadcast Section 3.1(c)(viii) False/misleading advertising 278 53 Undertaking (DMBU) services Section 3.1(c)(ix) Privacy issues 707 Section 3.1(b)(ii) Interactive TVSP services 14 Other – Broadcasting (television) 1,572 and applications Other – Broadcasting (radio) 54 Section 3.1(b)(iii) Broadcasting Content 421 Other – Consumer – clarity of offers 111 Section 3.1(b)(iv) Journalistic ethics 22 and promotions (TVSP Code) Section 3.1(b)(v) Accessibility issues Other – Not related to service providers 61 472 e.g. Closed-captioning and described video (Phone/internet scams) Section 3.1(b)(vi) Simultaneous substitution 27 Other – Regulated services 114 Section 3.1(c)(i) Customer owned equipment 395 TOTAL 8,378

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 42 2017-18 STATISTICAL REPORTS

TABLE 21: PROCEDURAL CODE SECTION 4

Issue Number

Section 4.1 Customer service Language barriers 203 Outsourcing 292 Rude representative 1,678 Wait times 2,199 Total 4,372 Section 4.3 General operating practices and policies 2,814

TOTAL 7,186

Some complaints could not be accepted due to provisions of the Procedural Code. They break down as follows.

TABLE 22: PROCEDURAL CODE SECTION 10: DUTY TO DECLINE TO TAKE ACTION

Issue Number

Section 10.1 Service provider not offered opportunity to resolve 1,432 Section 10.2(b) Matter previously or currently with another agency 1,271 Section 10.3(a) Facts transpired over one year 770 Section 10.3(b) Facts arose prior to Effective Date 175

TOTAL 3,648

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 43 2017-18 STATISTICAL REPORTS

Although accessibility issues are out of our mandate, the CRTC asked us to track when customers raised these about their service providers.

TABLE 23: ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES

Issue Number

Contract not provided in alternative format 0 Customer service Indifference to customer’s disability 14 Total 14 Emergency services 0 Hearing or speech issues In-store language accessibility 0 MRS not available 4 VRS not available 4 Total 8 Mobility issues In-store physical accessibility 1 Total 1 Other 16 Policies and operating procedures 8 Special type of wireless device handset not offered 0 Visual issues Bills and other information not provided in alternative format 2 Total 2

TOTAL 49

“I don’t think I would have been able to resolve my complaint without the intervention of the CCTS. I am very pleased with the resolution.” – P.O., an internet customer from PEI

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 44 2017-18 STATISTICAL REPORTS

Small business In 2017-18, we had 494 complaints from small business customers, 3.7% of all concluded complaints.

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 alike. In particular, we know that complaints from small business customers can be quite different from those of individual consumers. The following tables highlight the differences.

TABLE 24: SMALL BUSINESS COMPLAINT SUBJECTS vs. CONSUMER COMPLAINT SUBJECTS

Small Subject business Consumer

Contract dispute 56.7% 34.9% TABLE 26: TOP 10 SMALL BUSINESS COMPLAINT ISSUES Billing 21.9% 40.8% Small Service delivery 18.1% 21.0% Issue business Consumer Legitimacy and amount Credit management 3.3% 3.4% 21.0% 4.7% of early cancellation fees TOTAL 100% 100% Non-disclosure of terms/ Misleading information 10.5% 15.0% The small business percentages are similar to last year’s results. about terms Intermittent/Inadequate TABLE 25: SMALL BUSINESS COMPLAINT TYPES OF 8.2% 8.4% SERVICE vs. CONSUMER COMPLAINT TYPES OF SERVICES quality of service

Small Contract auto-renewal 7.8 % 0.2% Service business Consumer Incorrect charge 7. 2% 14.5%

Wireless 23.7% 42.2% No consent provided 4.8% 2.1% for contract renewal Internet 34.2% 29.1% Breach of contract 4.3% 5.2% Local phone 40.7% 16.5% No consent 3.4% 0.2% Long distance 1.5% 1.2% Credit reporting 2.9% 2.9% There were no small business or consumer complaints in Complete loss of service 2.8% 2.8% 2017-2018 about directory assistance, white page directories or operator services. The first eight small business issues were also the first eight issues The types of complaints for small business are similar last year, though the order was different. The last two issues to last year’s results. are different from last year, when number nine was “Material contract change without notice” and number ten was “Material contract change.”

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 45 2017-18 STATISTICAL REPORTS

Analysis of closed complaints Our operational statistics show that we closed 1,068 complaints in 2017-18. The following table provides a breakdown of the reasons why those complaints were closed, with reference to the relevant section of the Procedural Code.

TABLE 27: COMPLAINTS CLOSED BY REASON FOR CLOSURE

Number of closed % of closed Reason for closure complaints complaints

Customer withdraws complaint 76 7.1% Out-of-mandate after further information obtained 54 5.1% Section 9.1(b) Customer does not have sufficient interest 9 0.8% Section 9.1(c) Complaint more appropriately handled by another agency 25 2.3% Section 9.1(d) Further investigation not warranted 347 32.5% Section 9.1(e) Customer not cooperative 322 30.1% Section 9.1(f) Service provider offer is reasonable 201 18.8% Section 10.2(b) Matter previously or currently with another agency 10 0.9% Section 10.3(a) Complaint filed outside time limits 21 2.0% Section 10.3(b) Facts arose prior to Effective Date 3 0.3%

TOTAL 1,068 100%

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 46 2017-18 STATISTICAL REPORTS

Compensation analysis Performance standards In cases that are resolved, as well as in Recommendations and Each year, we set ourselves a goal of great customer service. Decisions, customers may receive some form of compensation To ensure that we’re meeting that goal, we track our performance from their service provider. This compensation can take many across various benchmarks. forms, including: CONTACT CENTRE/PRE-INVESTIGATION • bill credits TABLE 29: CONTACT CENTRE/PRE-INVESTIGATION • bill adjustments PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

• free or discounted products and services Process Target 2017-18 • cash payments Answer phone calls 80% 78.0% We attempt to record the value of all compensation awarded within 120 seconds to customers as a result of the CCTS process. This is challenging Process written because in a significant number of cases (in particular resolutions communications within 80% 70.7% that occur at our Pre-investigation stage) we are not provided 3 calendar days with the details of the settlement reached between the customer and the service provider. COMPLAINT HANDLING This report discloses the full value of compensation received TABLE 30: COMPLAINT HANDLING by customers that has been reported to us. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TABLE 28: NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS IN WHICH COMPENSATION WAS AWARDED Process Target 2017-18 Complaints concluded Number at Pre-investigation Compensation range of complaints Percentage 80% 97.9 % stage within 40 days < $100 3,070 33.8% of acceptance

$100 – $499 4,570 50.3% Complaints concluded at Investigation stage 80% 42.7% $500 – $999 927 10.2% within 60 days of referral $1,000 – $4,999 493 5.4% to Investigation

$5,000 or more 26 0.3% Although the 57% increase in complaints this year impacted TOTAL 9,086 100% our target benchmarks, the only substantial change was for concluding complaints at the Investigation stage within 60 days. Total compensation: $2,977,658

“I always received excellent service from your agents, good advice and explanation of issues. Thank you for providing this service.” – C.N., a wireless customer from ON

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 47 2017-18 STATISTICAL REPORTS

Regional analysis

We receive complaints from customers throughout Canada. Here, we identify the number of accepted complaints by 6 province/territory. 4 4 148 14,272 1,442 COMPLAINTS 1,118 154 360 3,776 6,663 53 36,708,083 320 205 POPULATION*

TABLE 31: COMPLAINTS ACCEPTED BY PROVINCE/TERRITORY

Province/Territory Complaints Population* Alberta 1,118 7.8 % 4,286,134 11.7% 1,442 10.1% 4,817,16 0 13.1% 360 2.5% 1,338,109 3.6% 205 1.4% 759,655 2.1% Newfoundland and Labrador 148 1.0% 528,817 1.4% 4 0.0% 44,520 0.1% Nova Scotia 320 2.2% 953,869 2.6% 4 0.0% 37,9 9 6 0.1% Ontario 6,663 46.7% 14,193,384 38.7% Prince Edward Island 53 0.4% 152,021 0.4% 3,776 26.5% 8,394,034 22.9% 154 1.1% 1,163,925 3.2% 6 0.0% 38,459 0.1% Not specified 19 0.1% TOTAL 14,272 100% 36,708,083 100%

Canada, Statistics Canada, Table 17-10-0005-01 (Ottawa, CANSIM, 2017) at https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000501 Please note that percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 48 GOVERNANCE

Board of Directors Consumer group appointees Marina Pavlovic´ – Marina is an Associate Professor at the Our Board is structured to provide for the participation of all University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, stakeholders while remaining independent from the telecom where she is a member of the Center for Law, Technology, and TV industries. It consists of seven directors who are elected and Society. Marina has research and teaching experience in for three-year terms: consumer protection, telecommunications, law and technology policy, and dispute resolution. She holds a law degree from the • four independent directors, two of whom are appointed University of Belgrade (Serbia) and a LLM in Law & Technology by consumer groups from the University of Ottawa.

• three industry directors, one each to represent the Jacques C.P. Bellemare – Jacques graduated in Engineering Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs), the cable Physics at École Polytechnique in Montreal (1961) and later companies and the other Participating Service Providers obtained an MBA from Laval University in Quebec (1973). In the private sector, he has worked in telephony with Bell Canada, in Cable TV with Cablevision Nationale (acquired by Videotron), in Director biographies consulting with Raymond, Chabot, Martin, Paré, and in regulation with Teleglobe Canada after its privatization. Since 1994, with his INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS own firm STEM Consultants Inc., he offers independent expertise Catherine Aczel Boivie, PhD, ICD.D (Board Chair, appointed in economic regulation of public utility companies, mostly in the October of 2016) – A senior executive and CEO, Catherine energy sector. In the public sector, from 1982 to 1988, Jacques has led the advancement of the strategic value of information served as a Member of the Quebec Public Service Board then technology as a business enabler at Vancity Credit Union, assuming regulatory jurisdiction over certain telephone companies Pacific Blue Cross and CAA British Columbia. She serves on located in Quebec, including Quebec-Telephone and Telebec. several boards, including those of Real Estate Board of Greater (REBGV), MedicAlert Canada and Artsclub theatre. INDUSTRY DIRECTORS She holds a BMath degree from University of Waterloo and Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) an MEd and PhD from University of Toronto. Dr. Boivie has Ruby Barber – Ruby is Assistant General Counsel, Legal & been publicly recognized for her contributions, including being Regulatory Affairs, and Director, Compliance at Bell Canada named as one of Canada’s top 100 most powerful women and is based in Ottawa. She joined Bell in 1997 and has a broad by the Women’s Executive Network in the “Trailblazers and range of legal and regulatory experience with telecom issues. Trendsetters” category, and is the recipient of the Queen Most recently she was responsible for Bell Canada’s consumer Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee medal for being a “catalyst for legal team, which on a day-to-day basis addresses legal issues technology transformation”. impacting Bell’s customers, including the Wireless Code of Conduct. Previously, she supported the Mergers & Acquisitions Darlene Halwas – Darlene currently serves on the boards of team at Bell as Assistant General Counsel, M&A. Prior to joining Aquatera Utilities Inc., Alberta WaterPortal Society and Watt Bell, Ruby was an associate at Fasken Martineau in Toronto, Consulting Group. She has almost 30 years work experience, practising corporate and securities law. She is a graduate of with 15 years focused on leading risk management functions for Queen’s University (Honours Politics) and Osgoode Hall Law companies. In the past, she has served on a number of boards, School and was called to the Bar in Ontario in 1991. including the Safety Codes Council, CKUA Radio Foundation, the Management Employees Pension Board and the Police Commission. She holds a Bachelor of Commerce (Hons.) from the University of Manitoba and the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA), Financial Risk Manager (FRM) and Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD.D) designations as well as certification in tribunal administrative justice. Since 1995, she has been an active volunteer with the CFA Institute, and recently completed her term on the global Disciplinary Review Committee. She was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal for her contributions to Canada. CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 49 2017-18 GOVERNANCE

Cable companies Other Participating Service Providers Dennis Béland (to October 2017) – Dennis is Vice-President, Bram Abramson – Bram is a Ford-Mozilla Open Web Fellow at Regulatory Affairs, Telecommunications, Quebecor Media Inc. Citizen Lab, an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the University Dennis has a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering and Management of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs. Previous roles and a Master’s Degree in Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy include head of law, regulatory, and public policy at TekSavvy; School of Government at Harvard University. He is a Member communications lawyer at McCarthy Tétrault; and senior analyst of the Board of Directors of the Canadian LNP Consortium Inc., at the CRTC and at TeleGeography. Bram is a graduate of the Canadian Numbering Administration Consortium Inc. and Concordia (BA, Communications) and McGill (BCL/LLB, Law) a former Member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian universities and, alongside his Ontario bar membership, holds Wireless Telecommunications Association. the CIPP/C, CIPM, and FIP privacy designations.

Dean Shaikh (from October 2017) – Dean is Vice President, For up-to-date biographies throughout the year, see our Regulatory Affairs at , where he is Board of Directors web page. primarily responsible for CRTC proceedings and compliance under the Broadcasting Act. He also provides advice on matters involving the Telecommunications Act, Competition Act Board changes and Copyright Act. Prior to joining Shaw in 2006, Dean was Regulatory Counsel at the Canadian Cable Telecommunications In October 2017, Dennis Béland retired after serving on Association. Previously, he worked at the Competition Bureau in the Board since 2008. Dean Shaikh was appointed to the the Mergers Branch. Dean is a graduate of Queen’s University “cable companies” director position that Dennis vacated. (Bachelor of Laws) and the University of Ottawa (Bachelor of Social Sciences – Political Science and Master of Laws).

Meetings and director attendance

Board meeting date Abramson Barber Béland Bellemare Boivie Halwas Pavlovic´ Shaikh

October 17, 2017 (conference call)

October 24, 2017 N/A*

January 31 and N/A* February 1, 2018

March 21, 2018 N/A* (conference call)

April 19, 2018 N/A*

June 21, 2018 N/A*

*Retired from Board in October of 2017.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 50 2017-18 GOVERNANCE

Committee meetings Strategic and operational The Board has a number of committees and working groups. initiatives for 2017-18 These committees met as follows. The Board has identified many key initiatives for 2018-19, Audit Committee – September 11 and October 6, 2017 and highlighted by: January 18, March 29, May 14, June 13 and June 22, 2018. • completing the strategic planning process which Corporate Governance Committee – August 3, September 6 began in 2017-18 and October 19, 2017 and February 14, 20, 22, March 21, • conducting the service delivery review to ensure that April 3, April 9, 12, June 11 and July 20, 2018. our service continues to incorporate best-in-class processes Independent Directors Committee – October 23 and and technologies December 19, 2017 and January 30, April 18 and June 20, 2018. • implementing the first phase of our IT Review plan, Budget Working Group – June 4, 11, 14 and 19, 2018. following the completion of a review conducted in 2017-18

Committee activity increased again in 2017-18, largely to reflect • implementing the recommendations of two IT security the Board’s efforts to put new programs and policies in place reviews recently conducted as well as to begin its strategic planning work. • continuing to work with groups representing persons with disabilities, to ensure full access to our service CCTS budget The CCTS audited financial statements for 2017-18 can be found in Appendix C. The CCTS is funded by the service providers. Large providers pay a fee based on the proportion of their revenues to the revenues of all the large service providers. Small providers pay an annual fee. All providers pay a fee for each complaint concluded by the CCTS from their customers in the year. New provider sign-up fees and bank interest make up the other sources of revenue.

The CCTS generated revenues that almost exactly matched pre-year projections. Expenses were over $600,000 under budget, largely arising from greater than anticipated challenges in recruiting staff.

Under the Participation Agreement that governs the relationship between the CCTS and the service providers, the CCTS normally credits the excess of revenues over expenses back to the service providers as a year-end adjustment. However, due to the substantial growth projected for the CCTS in 2018-19 and to ensure adequate funding for day-to-day operations, in June of 2018 the Board approved a Special Resolution (for the second year in a row) authorizing the CCTS to retain this surplus.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 51 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider

LEGEND Withdrawn Customer withdraws 9.1(b) Customer does not have 9.1(d) Further investigation 10.2(b) Matter previously or currently complaint sufficient interest not warranted with another agency Info. Out-of-mandate 9.1(c) Complaint more 9.1(e) Customer not cooperative 10.3(a) Complaint filed outside obtained after further appropriately handled time limits 9.1(f) Service provider offer information obtained by another agency is reasonable 10.3(b) Facts arose prior to Effective Date Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded Resolved All Pre-Investigation Investigation higher or All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1( b) 9.1( c ) 9.1(d ) 9.1( e ) 9.1(f ) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions

Accepted Concluded Provider Complaints Complaints Resolved Unresolved #100 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1010100 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1010580 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1010620 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1010738 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1011295.com 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1947244 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ontario Inc. 295.ca 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Web 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 450Tel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4pairless Communications 1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc. 8COM 3 0.0% 0.0% 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A dimension 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 humaine Acanac Inc. 66 0.5% 61.0% 48 45 29 16 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Accelerated 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Connections Access 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications Achatplus Inc. 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACN Canada 53 0.4% -17.2% 63 58 51 7 5 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 Acrobat 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Telecom Inc.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 52 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded Resolved All Pre-Investigation Investigation higher or All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1( b) 9.1( c ) 9.1(d ) 9.1( e ) 9.1(f ) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions

Accepted Concluded Provider Complaints Complaints Resolved Unresolved AEBC Internet 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corporation AEI Internet 1 0.0% -80.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AIC Global 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications AireNet Internet 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solutions AllCore Communications 2 0.0% N/A 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Inc. Allo Telecom 3 0.0% N/A 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Allstream 10 0.1% 150.0% 10 9 3 6 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Altima Telecom 8 0.1% -11.1% 9 9 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amtelecom LP 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amtelecom 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Telco GP Inc. Andrews Wireless 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aol Canada 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arrow Technology 1 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Group Atalk 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atop TV 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auracom 2 0.0% 0.0% 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Avenue 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Axess 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications Axsit 3 0.0% 200.0% 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B2B2C Inc. 6 0.0% 100.0% 5 4 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BabyTel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bell Aliant 229 1.6% 77.5% 218 204 181 23 14 2 1 0 0 4 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 Bell Canada 4,734 33.2% 45.8% 4,281 3,908 3,202 706 373 16 21 2 7 130 102 86 2 3 3 1 0 Bell ExpressVu 21 0.1% N/A 17 17 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bell 22 0.2% N/A 18 15 13 2 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 53 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded Resolved All Pre-Investigation Investigation higher or All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1( b) 9.1( c ) 9.1(d ) 9.1( e ) 9.1(f ) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions

Accepted Concluded Provider Complaints Complaints Resolved Unresolved Bell Fibe (Ontario) 28 0.2% N/A 16 16 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bell Fibe (Quebec) 26 0.2% N/A 25 23 19 4 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bell MTS 135 0.9% 95.7% 141 131 123 8 10 0 1 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 BluArc Communications 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc. BlueTone Canada 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bragg Communications 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc. Bravo Phone Cards 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bravo Telecom 6 0.0% 50.0% 5 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brightroam 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Broad-Connect 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Telecom Inc. Bruce Municipal 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Telephone System Bruce Telecom 2 0.0% 0.0% 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BV 3 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications 5 0.0% 400.0% 5 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cable Cable Inc. 1 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cablevision du Nord du 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Québec Inc. Call Select 2 0.0% -33.3% 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Can-net Telecom 8 0.1% 300.0% 7 6 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Canada Payphone 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corporation Canada Relink 0 0.0% -100.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caninter.net 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canopco 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cardinal Telecom 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2000) Inc.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 54 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded Resolved All Pre-Investigation Investigation higher or All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1( b) 9.1( c ) 9.1(d ) 9.1( e ) 9.1(f ) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions

Accepted Concluded Provider Complaints Complaints Resolved Unresolved Carry Telecom 8 0.1% 166.7% 5 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 CaspianWave 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caztel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CCAP (Coopérative de 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Câblodistribution de l`Arrière-pays) CCAP Cable 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CCI Wireless 5 0.0% 150.0% 5 4 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 CDMS Inc. 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CDTel 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chatr Wireless 159 1.1% 87.1% 153 118 79 39 35 1 1 0 0 24 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 China Telecom 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canada Corp. Choice Tel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CICI Mobile 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CICILynk 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CIK Telecom Inc. 27 0.2% 125.0% 26 24 22 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 CipherTV 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City Wide 18 0.1% 125.0% 13 11 2 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Communications 5 0.0% 25.0% 6 6 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CityWest Cable 2 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 & Telephone Corp. Clearlink 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Networks Coast Cable 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cogeco 546 3.8% 358.8% 340 322 278 44 18 2 0 0 0 2 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 Connexion Cogeco Peer 1 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Canada) Inc. Cogent Canada 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Colba.Net 2 0.0% 100.0% 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 55 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded Resolved All Pre-Investigation Investigation higher or All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1( b) 9.1( c ) 9.1(d ) 9.1( e ) 9.1(f ) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions

Accepted Concluded Provider Complaints Complaints Resolved Unresolved Compagnie de Téléphone 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 de Saint-Victor Compagnie de Téléphone 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Upton Inc. ComparAction 16 0.1% -5.9% 24 22 21 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Compton 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications Compuxellence 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Comwave 302 2.1% 34.8% 302 290 272 18 12 0 1 0 0 2 7 0 1 1 0 0 0 Connexio 1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Convergia 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Networks Inc. Cooptel 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cross Country 1 0.0% N/A 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T.V. Limited Cybersurf Internet 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Access (CIA) Dcall 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCI Telecom 0 0.0% -100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Delta Cable 4 0.0% 0.0% 5 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.0% 300.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diallog Telecommunications 1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corp. DialTone 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Digicom 2 0.0% N/A 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Distributel Communications 46 0.3% 76.9% 44 39 31 8 5 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Limited DolphinTel 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eastlink 129 0.9% 108.1% 135 123 114 9 12 2 2 1 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 EasyVoice 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Telecom EBOX Inc. 17 0.1% 41.7% 18 15 14 1 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 56 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded Resolved All Pre-Investigation Investigation higher or All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1( b) 9.1( c ) 9.1(d ) 9.1( e ) 9.1(f ) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions

Accepted Concluded Provider Complaints Complaints Resolved Unresolved Enhanced VOIP 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications Epik Networks 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Espacenet 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Execulink 13 0.1% -7.1% 13 12 10 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Falcon Internet 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Services Fibernetics 2 0.0% 100.0% 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fido 650 4.6% 42.9% 619 556 497 59 63 8 2 0 0 13 26 12 0 2 0 0 0 Fleettel inc. 1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Followtel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fongo Inc. 5 0.0% 400.0% 4 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Freedom 863 6.0% 189.6% 742 709 552 157 33 2 1 0 0 13 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 Mobile Inc. Freedom 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phone Lines FreePhoneLine.ca 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Frontline 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G3 Telecom 5 0.0% 400.0% 5 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gems Telecom 5 0.0% -16.7% 5 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GETUS Communications 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LTD. Giantel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Globalstar 3 0.0% -40.0% 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gold Leaf 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Telecom Ltd. Gold Line Telemanagement 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc. Good Call 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Groupe-Acces 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications HuronTel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 57 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded Resolved All Pre-Investigation Investigation higher or All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1( b) 9.1( c ) 9.1(d ) 9.1( e ) 9.1(f ) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions

Accepted Concluded Provider Complaints Complaints Resolved Unresolved ICA Canada 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 On-Line ICA Wireless 1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IceNet Wireless 2 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ilink 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications Impact Telecom 1 0.0% -50.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 InfoFortin Telecom 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 InfoSat 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications InnSys 3 0.0% -62.5% 5 3 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Intelecom 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solutions Inc. Inter.net Canada 3 0.0% 0.0% 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interhop 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internet 2 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Papineau Inc. IP4B 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0% N/A 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 italkBB 13 0.1% 30.0% 12 11 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 iTel Networks Inc. 1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ITP/International Telephone 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prod. LTD. Jive Communications 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technology Canada Ltd. K-Right Communications 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc. K2 Systems Inc. 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kawartha Cable 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 58 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded Resolved All Pre-Investigation Investigation higher or All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1( b) 9.1( c ) 9.1(d ) 9.1( e ) 9.1(f ) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions

Accepted Concluded Provider Complaints Complaints Resolved Unresolved Key 2 Communications 0 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc. Kincardine Group 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kingston Online 2 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Services KnowRoaming Ltd. 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Koodo 360 2.5% 36.9% 336 298 272 26 38 1 0 0 1 17 15 3 0 1 0 0 0 Kwic Internet (676766 Ontario 1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ltd.) Le pigeon 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 voyageur Leaf Telecommunications 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Leaftel) Les.Net (1996) Inc. 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Level 3 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications LightSpeed 4 0.0% 0.0% 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internet Little Loon Wireless 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LooneyCall 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0.1% N/A 10 8 7 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 LuckyCall 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lycatalk 1 0.0% -50.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Magic Jack Tel 11 0.1% 83.3% 12 11 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mascon Cable 2 0.0% N/A 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maskatel 6 0.0% 50.0% 5 5 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mastercall 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MaximumISP 1 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 maxTV 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mazagan Telecom 2 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 MCI Canada 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 59 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded Resolved All Pre-Investigation Investigation higher or All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1( b) 9.1( c ) 9.1(d ) 9.1( e ) 9.1(f ) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions

Accepted Concluded Provider Complaints Complaints Resolved Unresolved MCS Net 2 0.0% N/A 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mustang 1 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technologies Inc. My BC Datacom 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 National 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capital FreeNet National 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Teleconnect Navatalk 3 0.0% 200.0% 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NCIC Operator 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Services NECC 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NECC CA 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Negotel 2 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Reach 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NetAccess 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Systems Inc. Netfone 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Netfox Communications 1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corp. NetRevolution 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Netscape 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NetSet 1 0.0% -75.0% 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications NetTalk 4 0.0% N/A 4 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEWT Business 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Services Nexicom 2 0.0% N/A 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nobel Canada 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Telecom Nor-Del 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cablevision Northern Tel 7 0.0% 600.0% 6 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 60 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded Resolved All Pre-Investigation Investigation higher or All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1( b) 9.1( c ) 9.1(d ) 9.1( e ) 9.1(f ) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions

Accepted Concluded Provider Complaints Complaints Resolved Unresolved 2 0.0% 100.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northwind 0 0.0% -100.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wireless Novus 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Entertainment Inc. NRTC 1 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications Nucleus Information 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Service Inc. NuEra Telecom 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Odynet 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Omega Cable 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 On Call Centre 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OneConnect 1 0.0% -50.0% 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Services Inc. OnlineTel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OnStar 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ontarioeast.net 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ontera 4 0.0% 33.3% 7 7 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ooma 15 0.1% N/A 13 13 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Opcom Hospitality 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solutions Inc. OpenFace 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Orbitel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oricom Internet 1 0.0% -50.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Owtel 0 0.0% -100.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PageNet 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parlez rabais 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parolink.net 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pathway 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications PC Mobile 33 0.2% 10.0% 32 31 23 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 61 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded Resolved All Pre-Investigation Investigation higher or All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1( b) 9.1( c ) 9.1(d ) 9.1( e ) 9.1(f ) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions

Accepted Concluded Provider Complaints Complaints Resolved Unresolved People Line 0 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 People's 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tel GP Inc. People's Tel LP 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corp. Petro Canada 30 0.2% 150.0% 28 25 1 24 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Mobility Phone Factory 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phone Power 2 0.0% 0.0% 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phonebox 5 0.0% -37.5% 5 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Platinum 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Platinum Communications 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corp. Point to Point 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Broadband PortalOne 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Premiere Conferencing 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canada Ltd. Premiere 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Global Services Primus 181 1.3% 28.4% 193 181 155 26 12 3 1 0 0 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 Public Mobile 142 1.0% 36.5% 141 133 117 16 8 3 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pulse Telecom 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PWHR Solutions 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QINIQ 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quadro 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications Quebec internet 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Questzones 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quinte Long 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Distance

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 62 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded Resolved All Pre-Investigation Investigation higher or All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1( b) 9.1( c ) 9.1(d ) 9.1( e ) 9.1(f ) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions

Accepted Concluded Provider Complaints Complaints Resolved Unresolved RadioActif 1 0.0% 0.0% 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Raftview 1 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reliant Communications 3 0.0% 200.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc. Réseau 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Picanoc.net RevTel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ring Central 4 0.0% N/A 5 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Canada Inc. Roam Mobility 6 0.0% -72.7% 5 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rogers 1,449 10.2% 34.4% 1,407 1,253 1,124 129 154 11 7 2 3 35 52 33 2 7 0 1 1 Communications RuralWave 2 0.0% -33.3% 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S.M.S Vox Inc. 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sasktel 36 0.3% 16.1% 38 35 31 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sears Connect 7 0.0% -53.3% 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% -100.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Seaside Cable) Seaside Wireless Communications 11 0.1% N/A 10 8 3 5 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc. SecureNet Information 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Services Inc. Selectcom Inc. 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Selectcom 5 0.0% 66.7% 4 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Telecom Sens-net 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canada Inc. Shaw 337 2.4% 111.9% 315 299 259 40 16 1 0 0 0 3 9 2 0 1 0 0 0 Communications

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 63 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded Resolved All Pre-Investigation Investigation higher or All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1( b) 9.1( c ) 9.1(d ) 9.1( e ) 9.1(f ) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions

Accepted Concluded Provider Complaints Complaints Resolved Unresolved (Star Choice 24 0.2% N/A 18 18 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Television Network Incorporated) Silo Wireless 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Simcoe County 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Long Distance Simconet 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technologies Inc. SkyChoice Communications 1 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc. Skydata 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Smart Telecom 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sogetel 3 0.0% -40.0% 3 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solo 14 0.1% 55.6% 13 12 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ltd. 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Speak Out 37 0.3% 37.0 % 41 38 14 24 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Wireless (7-11) Speak Telecom 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spectravoice 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Springtel Communications 1 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Inc. SSi 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSi Mobile 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Start 8 0.1% 14.3% 6 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications start.ca 1 0.0% -66.7% 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Startec Global 3 0.0% 200.0% 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications Storm Internet 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sunsonic 7 0.0% N/A 7 1 0 1 6 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surf Media Inc. 2 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swiftvox 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 64 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded Resolved All Pre-Investigation Investigation higher or All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1( b) 9.1( c ) 9.1(d ) 9.1( e ) 9.1(f ) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions

Accepted Concluded Provider Complaints Complaints Resolved Unresolved Switchworks 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Syban 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Systems Ltd. Talk & Save 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Talk Canada 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Talkit.ca Inc. 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tamaani Internet 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Targo Communications 2 0.0% 100.0% 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc. Tata Communications 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Canada) ULC 7 0.0% -41.7% 9 7 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 TekSavvy 112 0.8% 103.6% 116 110 99 11 6 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Solutions Inc. Tel-Synergy 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Télébec 11 0.1% 10.0% 12 10 8 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Télécommunications 2 0.0% -33.3% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Xittel Telehop 4 0.0% 0.0% 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Telemart 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Téléphone 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saint-Éphrem Telesave Communications 1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ltd. Telizon 1 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TelKel Inc. 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Telnet 1 0.0% -75.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications TELUS Communications 944 6.6% 49.6% 901 831 757 74 70 5 8 1 2 27 12 11 2 2 0 0 0 Inc.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 65 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded Resolved All Pre-Investigation Investigation higher or All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1( b) 9.1( c ) 9.1(d ) 9.1( e ) 9.1(f ) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions

Accepted Concluded Provider Complaints Complaints Resolved Unresolved TeraGo 2 0.0% 100.0% 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Networks Inc. ThinkTel 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toronto Telecom 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tough Country 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cookshire Tuckersmith 1 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications Uniserve 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications Unlimitel 1 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vancouver Telephone 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Company Ltd. Vbuzzer 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Velcom 4 0.0% -20.0% 4 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Velocity 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Networks Inc. Verizon 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VerseTEL Inc. 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vianet Inc. 1 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vianet Internet 2 0.0% -71.4% 6 5 4 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solutions Vidéotron ltée/ 740 5.2% 113.9% 696 650 587 63 46 2 4 1 1 18 12 6 2 0 0 0 0 Videotron Ltd. VIF Internet 2 0.0% -60.0% 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Virgin Mobile 847 5.9% 39.3% 827 792 673 119 35 2 1 0 0 18 6 7 0 1 0 0 0 Canada VMedia 32 0.2% 88.2% 27 24 19 5 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vodalink Telecom 1 0.0% -50.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voice Network Inc. 1 0.0% -83.3% 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VoIP Much Phone 0 0.0% N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Company Inc.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 66 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix A – Complaints by service provider Accepted % of all Complaints Y/Y % Change Concluded Resolved All Pre-Investigation Investigation higher or All Unresolved Withdrawn Info. obtained 9.1( b) 9.1( c ) 9.1(d ) 9.1( e ) 9.1(f ) 10.2(b) 10.3(a) 10.3(b) Recommendations Decisions

Accepted Concluded Provider Complaints Complaints Resolved Unresolved Voip.ms 3 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vonage Canada 36 0.3% -40.0% 38 38 12 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corporation Vox 0 0.0% N/A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vox Sun 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westman Communications 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Group WestNet Wireless 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wightman Telecom 0 0.0% -100.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WiMac Tel 4 0.0% 300.0% 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Win-tel 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 World-Link Communications 2 0.0% 0.0% 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inc. Worldline 11 0.1% 83.3% 11 9 4 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 WTC 1 0.0% 0.0% 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Communications Xinflix 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Xplornet Internet 378 2.6% 47.7% 379 353 293 60 26 3 0 0 1 4 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 Services Yak Communications 13 0.1% -23.5% 14 14 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corp. YAP – Your Affordable 1 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Provider Inc. Zazeen 0 0.0% -100.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zid Internet 2 0.0% 0.0% 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZIP SIM 0 0.0% N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zoomer 7 0.0% 250.0% 8 8 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 14,272 100.0% – 13,224 12,149 10,214 1,935 1,075 76 54 9 25 347 322 201 10 21 3 5 2

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 67 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix B – Detailed analysis of issues raised in complaints This table details the issues raised in the complaints that we concluded between August 01, 2017 and July 31, 2018. The total number of issues exceeds the number of complaints concluded because some complaints raised more than one issue. stance Local Exchange Exchange Local and VoIP DistanceLong Wireless Television Internet Pages White Directory assi servicesOperator Total

Billing 2,034 203 5,393 1,448 3,223 0 1 4 12,306 30-day cancellation policy/ 365 15 373 230 529 0 0 0 1,512 Charges billed after cancellation 3rd party charges 10 4 19 0 0 0 0 0 33 Airtime 0 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 123 Bandwidth usage 0 0 0 0 131 0 0 0 131 Bill delivery 46 5 236 35 91 0 0 0 413 Fees for paper billing 0 0 14 1 1 0 0 0 16 Invoices not received 46 5 222 34 90 0 0 0 397 Bundling discounts 39 1 11 19 47 0 0 0 117 Calling Cards 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Balance clearing 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Fees not disclosed 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Wrong rate 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Chargeable messages 41 76 183 0 0 0 0 0 300 Credit/refund not received 205 14 676 134 349 0 0 1 1,379 Data charges 0 0 848 0 0 0 0 0 848 Long distance toll fraud 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Misapplied payments 53 4 119 30 77 0 0 0 283 Monthly price plan 982 55 1,208 744 1,392 0 0 0 4,381 Government and regulatory fees 2 1 6 1 1 0 0 0 11 Incorrect Charge 980 54 1,202 743 1,391 0 0 0 4,370 One-time fees 164 2 567 135 389 0 0 0 1,257 Activation/reactivation charges 34 1 139 12 75 0 0 0 261 Deactivation charges 35 0 26 3 36 0 0 0 100 Equipment charges 40 0 267 84 195 0 0 0 586 Late-payment fees 55 1 135 36 83 0 0 0 310 Pay per use services 2 0 9 18 0 0 1 3 33 Payment arrangement dispute 24 1 86 14 33 0 0 0 158

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 68 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix B – Detailed analysis of issues raised in complaints Local Exchange Exchange Local and VoIP DistanceLong Wireless Television Internet Pages White Directory assistance servicesOperator Total Billing 2,034 203 5,393 1,448 3,223 0 1 4 12,306 Pre-authorized payments 58 5 127 13 105 0 0 0 308 Incorrect amount 14 1 41 3 28 0 0 0 87 Incorrect bank account/credit card 2 1 9 0 4 0 0 0 16 Not authorized 42 3 77 10 73 0 0 0 205 Pre-paid service 0 0 226 0 0 0 0 0 226 Balance clearing 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 74 Fees not disclosed 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 No invoice 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Top-up 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 105 Wrong rate 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 38 Premium text messaging charges 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 Rental equipment 3 0 1 35 39 0 0 0 78 Modem 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 39 TV Terminal 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 35 VoIP hub 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 Repair charges 3 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 14 Charges incorrect 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 Charges not disclosed 3 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 10 Inside wiring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Roaming charges 0 0 380 0 0 0 0 0 380 Text messaging charges (not premium) 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 58 Transfer of Responsibility 13 0 26 4 18 0 0 0 61 Value-add services 26 0 111 35 14 0 0 0 186

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 69 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix B – Detailed analysis of issues raised in complaints Local Exchange Exchange Local and VoIP DistanceLong Wireless Television Internet Pages White Directory assistance servicesOperator Total Contract dispute 1,933 95 4,880 1,163 2,909 0 0 0 10,980 Compliance with Terms of Service/Contract 560 25 1,484 490 896 0 0 0 3,455 Breach of Contract 201 6 866 185 317 0 0 0 1,575 Material contract change 184 4 279 179 303 0 0 0 949 Material contract change without notice 175 15 339 126 276 0 0 0 931 Contract duration/Length of Term 16 0 22 2 11 0 0 0 51 Contract renewal 140 3 13 4 94 0 0 0 254 Auto-renewal 91 2 2 0 60 0 0 0 155 No consent 49 1 11 4 34 0 0 0 99 Early Termination Fees (ETF) 434 3 477 133 580 0 0 0 1,627 Amount of ETF 63 0 68 13 71 0 0 0 215 Legitimacy of ETF 371 3 409 120 509 0 0 0 1,412 Hardware Financing Plan 2 0 20 0 2 0 0 0 24 No consent provided 149 20 249 68 178 0 0 0 664 Non-disclosure of terms/ 631 44 2,256 465 1,147 0 0 0 4,543 Misleading information about terms Warranties 1 0 359 1 1 0 0 0 362 Extended warranty purchased from service provider 1 0 138 0 0 0 0 0 139 Manufacturer`s Warranty 0 0 221 1 1 0 0 0 223 Service delivery 1,242 81 1,947 560 2,580 0 0 0 6,410 Customer-initiated cancellations 389 37 403 126 357 0 0 0 1,312 Cx cancellation due date not kept/delayed 106 6 102 61 161 0 0 0 436 Unable to cancel 96 31 187 65 196 0 0 0 575 Unable to port 187 0 114 0 0 0 0 0 301 Device placed on blacklist 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 Disconnection/Suspension of service 99 3 356 54 136 0 0 0 648 Acceptable use policy 3 0 11 1 3 0 0 0 18 Bandwidth/Data over-consumption 0 0 13 0 3 0 0 0 16 Fraud 0 0 28 1 0 0 0 0 29 Non-payment/collections 83 3 281 43 112 0 0 0 522 Partial payment 5 0 12 0 7 0 0 0 24 Seasonal suspension 8 0 11 9 11 0 0 0 39

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 70 2017-18 APPENDICES

Appendix B – Detailed analysis of issues raised in complaints Local Exchange Exchange Local and VoIP DistanceLong Wireless Television Internet Pages White Directory assistance servicesOperator Total Service delivery 1,242 81 1,947 560 2,580 0 0 0 6,410 Installation/Activation 148 0 81 67 282 0 0 0 578 Damage to property 3 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 15 Install/activate due date not kept/delayed 101 0 54 49 214 0 0 0 418 Installation error 44 0 27 14 60 0 0 0 145 Repair/Loss of service 576 24 1,026 310 1,796 0 0 0 3,732 Complete loss of service 213 12 219 98 330 0 0 0 872 Damage to property 7 0 0 2 18 0 0 0 27 Inside wiring 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 Intermittent/Inadequate quality of service 293 12 780 173 1,315 0 0 0 2,573 Outside wiring 11 0 0 3 17 0 0 0 31 Service repair/loss due date not kept/delayed 49 0 27 34 114 0 0 0 224 Service provider/Account sold 0 0 30 1 0 0 0 0 31 Transferred wrong number or service 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 9 Unauthorized transfer of service 28 15 30 2 9 0 0 0 84 Further to inquiry 19 10 18 2 5 0 0 0 54 Further to solicitation 9 5 12 0 4 0 0 0 30 Credit management 145 4 537 77 275 0 0 0 1,038 Credit limit 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 27 Disputes limit amount 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 Exceeded limit 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 Spending limit/other details not disclosed 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 Credit reporting 127 4 459 71 239 0 0 0 900 Security deposit 18 0 51 6 36 0 0 0 111 Disputes deposit amount 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Disputes requirement for deposit 1 0 9 2 5 0 0 0 17 Interest 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Not refunded 17 0 38 4 31 0 0 0 90 TOTAL 5,354 383 12,757 3,248 8,987 0 1 4 30,734

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 71 Appendix C – Financial statements

F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T S For COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC. For the year ended JULY 31, 2018

An Independent Member of BKR International INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT

To the directors of COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC.

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of Commission for Complaints for Telecom- television Services Inc./Commission des plaintes relatives aux services de télécom-télévision inc., which comprise the statement of financial position as at July 31, 2018, and the statements of operations, changes in net assets and cash flows for the year then ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information.

Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations, and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.

Opinion In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services Inc./Commission des plaintes relatives aux services de télécom-télévision inc. as at July 31, 2018, and the results of its operations, the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations.

Chartered Professional Accountants Licensed Public Accountants Ottawa, Ontario October 5, 2018. Welch LLP - Chartered Professional Accountants 123 Slater Street, 3rd floor, Ottawa, ON K1P 5H2 T: 613 236 9191 F: 613 236 8258 W: welchllp.com An Independent Member of BKR International

Page 1 of 11 COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC. STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION JULY 31, 2018

2018 2017 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash - note 4 $ 1,735,917 $ 1,385,322 Accounts receivable 696,093 439,196 Prepaid expenses 12,655 10,980 2,444,665 1,835,498

TANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS - note 5 266,158 176,052

INTANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS - note 6 131,473 130,888

$ 2,842,296 $ 2,142,438

LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts payable and accrued liabilities - note 7 $ 371,897 $ 309,364

NET ASSETS Invested in tangible and intangible capital assets - internally restricted 397,631 306,940 Unrestricted 2,072,768 1,526,134 2,470,399 1,833,074

$ 2,842,296 $ 2,142,438

Approved by the Board:

Director

Director

(See accompanying notes)

Page 2 of 11 An Independent Member of BKR International COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC. STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 2018

2018 2017 Revenue Operating fees Revenue-based $ 2,788,295 $ 2,713,428 Complaint-based 1,858,863 1,356,510 Annual 16,200 15,000 Special levy - note 8 571,087 523,310 Participation fees 29,000 16,500 Interest 21,038 11,219 5,284,483 4,635,967

Expenses Salaries and benefits 3,187,878 2,674,179 Rent 455,152 425,608 Amortization 160,386 144,007 Directors fees 132,380 132,759 Consultants 132,216 87,805 Systems support and maintenance 88,753 72,060 Legal 82,583 111,544 Communications and advertising 79,335 97,044 Telecommunications 63,460 58,455 Travel and promotion 51,604 44,911 Office 49,568 39,645 Staff training 44,325 31,448 Board expenses 39,881 24,014 Recruiting 35,781 72,558 Insurance 16,250 14,768 Accounting 13,500 11,000 Interest and bank charges 7,668 6,767 Equipment rental 4,925 5,600 Bad debts 1,513 15,766 4,647,158 4,069,938

Net revenue $ 637,325 $ 566,029

(See accompanying notes)

Page 3 of 11 An Independent Member of BKR International COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC. STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 2018

2018 2017 Internally Restricted - capital assets Balance, beginning of year $ 306,940 $ 335,520 Capital expenditures 251,077 115,427 Amortization (160,386) (144,007)

Balance, end of year $ 397,631 $ 306,940

Unrestricted Balance, beginning of year $ 1,526,134 $ 931,525 Net revenue 637,325 566,029 Amortization charged against restricted capital assets 160,386 144,007 Capital expenditures credited to restricted capital assets (251,077) (115,427)

Balance, end of year $ 2,072,768 $ 1,526,134

Total net assets

Balance, beginning of year - Internally Restricted - capital assets $ 306,940 $ 335,520 Unrestricted 1,526,134 931,525 $ 1,833,074 $ 1,267,045 Balance, end of year - Internally Restricted - capital assets $ 397,631 $ 306,940 Unrestricted 2,072,768 1,526,134 $ 2,470,399 $ 1,833,074

(See accompanying notes)

Page 4 of 11 An Independent Member of BKR International COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC. STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 2018

2018 2017 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Net revenue $ 637,325 $ 566,029 Adjustments for: Amortization 160,386 144,007 797,711 710,036 Changes in non-cash working capital components: Accounts receivable (256,897) (117,885) Prepaid expenses (1,675) (843) Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 62,533 77,196 Year end fee adjustment receivable - 27,411 601,672 695,915 CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Purchase of tangible and intangible capital assets (251,077) (115,427)

INCREASE IN CASH 350,595 580,488

CASH, BEGINNING OF YEAR 1,385,322 804,834

CASH, END OF YEAR $ 1,735,917 $ 1,385,322

(See accompanying notes)

Page 5 of 11 An Independent Member of BKR International COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC. NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 2018

1. NATURE OF OPERATIONS

The Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services Inc./ Commission des Plaintes Relatives aux Services de Télécom-télévison Inc. is constituted without share capital under Section 211 of the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act. The organization's mandate is to receive, to facilitate the resolution of, and if necessary, to resolve eligible Canadian consumer and small business complaints relating to certain services. On September 1, 2017, the organization's mandate was expanded to include complaints related to certain types of subscription television services and the organization adopted its current name. Prior to this the organization was named Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services Inc./ Commissaire aux Plaintes Relatives aux Services de Télécommunications Inc. The organization operates on a not-for-profit basis and, as such, is exempt from income tax pursuant to section 149 (1)(l) of the Income Tax Act.

2. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Basis of accounting

The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations.

Revenue recognition

Operating fees consist of revenue-based fees, complaint-based fees, and annual fees paid by participating service providers to fund the operations of the organization. Revenue-based fees and annual fees are recognized as revenue during the period to which they relate. Complaint-based fees are based on the number of complaints closed in the period and are recognized as revenue when the complaints are closed.

Special levy fees are recognized as revenue during the period to which the fees relate.

Participation fees consist of one-time start-up fees and are recognized as revenue on the date the service provider becomes a participating service provider.

Interest income consists of interest on overdue participation and operating fees, as well as interest earned on bank accounts, and is recognized as revenue when earned.

Tangible capital assets and amortization

Tangible capital assets are recorded at acquisition cost. Amortization is provided on a straight-line basis over five years in the case of furniture and equipment; three years in the case of computer equipment; and over the life of the lease in the case of leasehold improvements. In the year of acquisition, amortization is pro-rated over the number of months the asset is owned by the organization.

Intangible capital assets and amortization

Intangible capital assets are recorded at acquisition cost. Amortization is provided on a straight-line basis over five years. In the year of acquisition, amortization is pro-rated over the number of months the asset is owned by the organization.

Page 6 of 11 An Independent Member of BKR International COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC. NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Cont'd. YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 2018

2. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - Cont'd.

Financial instruments

The organization's financial instruments consist of cash, accounts receivable and accounts payable and accrued liabilities. Cash is subsequently measured at fair value. All other financial instruments are subsequently recorded at cost or amortized cost.

Transaction costs associated with the acquisition and disposal of financial instruments are expensed as incurred.

Use of estimates

The preparation of financial statements in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for- profit organizations requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period.

Management makes estimates regarding the estimated useful life of its tangible and intangible capital assets, the collectibility of its accounts receivable and its accounts payable and accrued liabilities. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

3. FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND RISK MANAGEMENT

The organization is exposed to and manages various financial risks resulting from both its operations and its investment activities, and does not enter into financial instrument agreements including derivative financial instruments for speculative purposes.

The organization's main financial risk exposure and its financial management policies are as follows:

Credit risk

The organization is exposed to credit risk resulting from the possibility that parties may default on their financial obligations. The organization's maximum exposure to credit risk represents the sum of the carrying value of its cash and accounts receivable.

The organization's cash is deposited with a Canadian chartered bank and as a result management believes the risk of loss on this item to be remote.

Management believes that the organization's credit risk with respect to accounts receivable is limited. The organization manages its credit risk by reviewing accounts receivable aging monthly and diligently following up on collection of outstanding amounts. During the last fiscal year the organization has reported bad debts of $1,513 (2017 - $15,766). Management has established an allowance for uncollectible accounts receivable at July 31, 2018 of $20,876 (2017 - $19,606) that represents management’s best estimate of potentially uncollectible accounts.

Liquidity risk

Liquidity risk is the risk that the organization cannot meet a demand for cash or fund its obligations as they become due.

The organization meets its liquidity risk requirements by establishing budgets and cash estimates to ensure it has funds necessary to fulfill its obligations.

Page 7 of 11 An Independent Member of BKR International COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC. NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Cont'd. YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 2018

3. FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND RISK MANAGEMENT - Cont'd.

Market risk

Market risk is the risk that the fair value of future cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate because of changes in market prices. Market risk is comprised of currency risk, interest rate risk and other price risk.

Currency risk

Currency risk refers to the risk that the fair value of instruments or future cash flows associated with the instruments will fluctuate relative to the Canadian dollar due to changes in foreign exchange rates. The organization's financial instruments are in Canadian currency. Consequently, the organization is not exposed to foreign exchange fluctuations on its financial instruments.

Interest rate risk

Interest rate risk refers to the risk that the fair value of financial instruments or future cash flows associated with the financial instruments will fluctuate due to changes in market interest rates.

The organization is not exposed to interest rate risk.

Other price risk

Other price risk refers to the risk that the fair value of financial instruments or future cash flows associated will fluctuate because of changes in market prices (other than those arising from currency risk or interest rate risk), whether those changes are caused by factors specific to the individual instrument or its issuer or factors affecting all similar instruments traded in the market. The organization does not have investments in publicly traded securities and therefore is not exposed to other price risk.

Changes in risk

There have been no significant changes in the organization's risk exposures from the prior year.

4. CASH

Cash consists of the following: 2018 2017

Current chequing account $ 30,898 $ 68,646 Premium investment savings account 1,705,019 1,316,676

$ 1,735,917 $ 1,385,322

The premium investment savings account earns interest which is received monthly.

Page 8 of 11 An Independent Member of BKR International COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC. NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Cont'd. YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 2018

5. TANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS 2018 2017 Accumulated Accumulated Cost amortization Cost amortization

Furniture and equipment $ 297,179 $ 238,496 $ 251,355 $ 215,791 Computer equipment 545,507 366,051 416,477 302,244 Leasehold improvements 97,344 69,325 81,853 55,598 940,030 $ 673,872 749,685 $ 573,633

Accumulated amortization 673,872 573,633

$ 266,158 $ 176,052

6. INTANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS 2018 2017

Case management software $ 541,861 $ 481,129 Accumulated Amortization 410,388 350,241

$ 131,473 $ 130,888

7. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND ACCRUED LIABILITIES

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities consists of the following: 2018 2017

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $ 274,916 $ 207,760 Government remittances payable 96,981 101,604

$ 371,897 $ 309,364

Page 9 of 11 An Independent Member of BKR International COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC. NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Cont'd. YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 2018

8. YEAR-END FEE ADJUSTMENT

The operations of the organization are funded primarily by two types of fees charged to participating service providers:

1. Revenue-based fees - Billed to participating service providers with eligible retail revenues greater than $10 million, based on their proportionate share of those revenues; and

2. Complaint-based fees - Billed to those participating service providers with complaints concluded in the fiscal year, based on the number of the provider’s complaints concluded in the fiscal year, and the level of the process at which they are concluded.

Under the Participation Agreement, revenue-based fees are to cover 60% of total expenses while complaint-based fees are to cover 40% of total expenses. For the 2017 year, however, an exception was approved whereby revenue-based fees covered 67% of total expenses and complaint-based fees covered 33% of total expenses. During the year, the amount invoiced to participating service providers is calculated so as to generate sufficient revenues to match budgeted expenses, based on Management’s projections of the year’s anticipated operational activities. At the end of the year these two categories of fees are adjusted to reflect both the 60% / 40% split (2017 - 67% / 33%) and to match the total expense figure of $4,647,158 (2017 - $4,069,938).

Revenue-based fees were adjusted downwards as the actual amount billed to revenue-based fee payors was more than 60% (2017 - 67%) of the actual expenses of the organization. Complaint-based fees were adjusted downwards because the actual amount billed to complaint-based fee payors was more than 40% (2017 - 33%) of the actual expenses of the organization.

Summary of Year End Fee Adjustment: 2018 2017

Revenue-based fees adjustment $ (343,495) $ (357,504) Complaint-based fees adjustment (227,592) (165,806)

Year end fee adjustment $ (571,087) $ (523,310)

In addition, under Section 27 of the Participation Agreement a special levy can, by Extraordinary Resolution of the Members, be billed to the participating service providers for the purposes of funding the organization. In 2018, the Members approved a special levy of $571,087 (2017 - $523,310) and this amount has reduced the amount otherwise owing to participating service providers.

9. AVAILABLE CREDIT

The organization has access to credit through Visa credit cards with a total credit limit of $27,500. The credit cards are paid in full each month. The company also has access to an operating line of credit. The interest rate on the line of credit is prime plus 1.25% and the authorized limit of the line of credit is $500,000. The operating line of credit is secured by a general security agreement. No balance is outstanding at July 31, 2018.

Page 10 of 11 An Independent Member of BKR International COMMISSION FOR COMPLAINTS FOR TELECOM-TELEVISION SERVICES INC./ COMMISSION DES PLAINTES RELATIVES AUX SERVICES DE TÉLÉCOM-TÉLÉVISION INC. NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - Cont'd. YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 2018

10. COMMITMENTS

As of July 31, 2018, the organization has one ongoing lease for its premises and one for equipment. The main office lease expires March 31, 2024 and the equipment lease expires on December 31, 2023.

Annual minimum lease payments over the next five years are as follows:

Building Equipment Total

2019 $ 452,336 $ 4,682 $ 457,018 2020 436,181 4,682 440,863 2021 455,798 4,682 460,480 2022 456,952 4,682 461,634 2023 461,567 1,170 462,737

$ 2,262,834 $ 19,898 $ 2,282,732

11. RELATED PARTIES

Service providers from which the organization purchases telecommunications services may be considered related parties, as they are entitled to participate in the appointment of directors. The organization enters into transactions with these related parties in the normal course of business and transactions are recorded at their fair value. As a result, separate disclosure of these transactions is not presented within the financial statements.

Page 11 of 11 An Independent Member of BKR International 2017-18 APPENDICES

Decision: A Decision is issued if either the customer or the service Appendix D – Definitions provider rejects the CCTS Recommendation. The party rejecting the Below are some terms used throughout the report Recommendation must set out its reasons and the Commissioner and their definitions. will reconsider the Recommendation and issue a Decision. The Commissioner may confirm the original Recommendation or, if Accepted complaint: A customer complaint received during the Commissioner concludes that there is substantial doubt as to the year and which falls within the CCTS’ mandate, also the correctness of the Recommendation, the Commissioner may sometimes referred to simply as a “complaint”. modify the Recommendation as appropriate. A Decision is binding on the service provider but not on the customer. The customer Alleged breach: When a customer claims that the service may reject it and pursue other remedies. provider failed to perform an obligation under one of the three CRTC-developed codes of conduct the CCTS administer Further investigation not warranted: When we determine, (the D&D Code, the Wireless Code and the TVSP Code) or after assessment, that an investigation or a further investigation when a CCTS staff member identifies a potential code breach is not necessary because we determine that the service provider based on the details of a complaint. Each breach references has reasonably performed its obligations to the customer. an individual section of the code. As a result, more than one alleged breach may be recorded in a complaint. Investigation: We analyze the evidence provided and use this analysis to suggest ways in which the complaint might Closed complaint: A complaint that was accepted and then be resolved amicably. subsequently closed. CCTS may close the complaint for various reasons, including any of the following. Issue: A specific concern expressed by the customer in the complaint. Many complaints raise more than one issue. For • The service provider has made an offer to resolve the example, a customer may complain that their invoice contains complaint that we think is fair and reasonable in light a billing error and that the unpaid balance resulted in a service of the specific circumstances of the complaint. disconnection. This would be considered one complaint that raises two issues. • The complaint was found to be without merit. No breach: When we have investigated an alleged breach • After filing the complaint, the customer either withdrew and concluded that the service provider did not breach it or failed to provide the information we needed to the Code in question. conduct our investigation. Out of mandate: Complaints about products, services or issues • The complaint should more properly have been brought before that we cannot investigate are considered to be “out of mandate.” another agency, tribunal or court. Pre-investigation: The stage of our process where the parties Assessment: We assess the information the customer has have 30 days to resolve the customer’s complaint, failing which we provided to determine if, based on our mandate, we are able will begin an investigation to begin assessing whether the service to accept a complaint. provider reasonably performed its obligations to the customer.

Concluded complaint: A complaint that we have accepted Recommendation: The complaint was fully investigated. Often, and disposed of by resolving it, closing it or issuing a the service provider has not made an offer to informally resolve Recommendation or Decision. The complaint may have been the complaint or the offer is not found to be reasonable in light accepted during the year or during the preceding year but of the specific circumstances of the complaint. We will make was concluded during the fiscal year in which it is reported. a Recommendation requesting that the provider take specific actions to resolve the matter. Confirmed breach: When we can confirm, based on our investigation, that a provision of a code has been breached. Resolved: The complaint was informally resolved with the assistance of a CCTS team member to the satisfaction of both Customer not cooperative: When a customer files a complaint the customer and the participating service provider. but fails to provide the information we need to conduct our investigation. In this situation, the complaint is closed. Service provider offer is reasonable: When the service provider makes an offer to resolve a complaint and the CCTS determines that the offer fairly resolves the problem. In this situation, the complaint is closed.

CCTS ANNUAL REPORT 2017-18 84 P.O. Box 56067 – Minto Place RO, Ottawa, ON K1R 7Z1

[email protected] 1-888-221-1687 TTY: 1-877-782-2384 Fax: 1-877-782-2924

www.ccts-cprst.ca

This report is also available in French.