Investigation Finding Report

After analyzing the information and evidence from both parties, we determined the service provider failed to meet its obligation towards the customer and is required to take the following actions:

1. Provide the customer with the $10.00/month credit for the duration of the disputed contracts.

We note that the provider has already completed the above remedy by applying additional discounts across the nine lines, which exceed the value of the above remedy. These discounts are detailed below in this report.

Issue 1: The customer’s complaint is that the service provider activated an account, service or contract without the customer’s consent, or the details of the contract differ from what was agreed to during the initial transaction.

• The customer’s complaint is that they had a phone call on October 24, 2023, after which they entered into a two-year business contract ending October 24, 2025, for nine iPhones and wireless lines. The customer alleges that the service provider removed a 20% promotional discount, a multi-unit discount of $250.00, and a $6.19 discount for the nine phone lines in November 2024, and they dispute the removal of the discounts.
• We reviewed the service provider’s terms of service and note that the customer must continue to meet the eligibility requirements to have the discounts, credits or promotions on their account.
  • The terms also stated that the service provider will check eligibility from time to time, that a customer can become ineligible and that the service provider may remove the discount or credit without prior notice.
  • The contract included a trial period of 15 days during which the customer could return the devices for a full refund or cancel the services with no cancellation fees.
• As the interaction on October 24, 2023, occurred over the phone, we asked for a copy of the call recording, but it was not available. As a result, our investigation relies on the available evidence, which includes the service agreement generated after the phone call, as well as the call notes.
• We reviewed the customer’s two-year contract dated October 24, 2023, which included nine wireless lines with the following:
  • Each device was an iPhone 15 with 128 GB.
  • A monthly plan of $85.00 before tax, which included unlimited 150 5G with US calling and SMS, with an Easy Payment device balance of $961.00.
  • The $961.00 Easy Payment balance was to be repaid in installments of $40.04 per month/per phone over the two-year contract, and the device discount of $200.00 was to be reduced by $8.33 per month over 24 months.
    • While we found an indication of one discount listed under each of the nine phones in the contract, they amounted to zero ($0.00) dollars for 24 months for all phones.
• A review of the Wireless Code confirmed that further to section B.1.iii, discounts are not defined under key contract terms or conditions or other aspects of the contract.
• However, further to section A.1(i) of the Wireless Code, service providers are required to communicate with customers in a way that is clear, timely and uses plain language.
• Should the customer find that the details of the contract conflict with the permanent copy of the contract, further to section B.1.i(c), the Wireless Code allows the customer to cancel the contract within 30 days of receiving the permanent copy without paying an early cancellation fee or any other penalty.
• While we reviewed an email offer sent to the customer on October 19, 2023, which indicated that the customer had been offered an iPhone 15 128 GB (quantity 1) for $33.38, an unlimited 120 5G (quantity 1) for 24 months at $85.00, with a $17.00 discount (quantity not specified), a manager’s credit of $5.00 (quantity not specified) and a multi-unit discount of $25.00 (quantity not specified), we note that this offer was not the final agreement made.
  • As indicated, both by the customer and the contract, the agreement was completed over the phone and included nine iPhone 15 devices with 128 GB. Each phone covered by the customer’s contract included unlimited 150 5G (not 120 GB) of US calling and SMS, a monthly plan of $85.00 in addition to device payment plans.
• We reviewed the account notes from October 11, 2023, through March 31, 2025, and note the following:
  • On October 19, 2023, the customer called to add an additional service line, an iPhone 15 device for $33.58 and unlimited 75 5G for $55.00.
  • On October 24, 2023, the customer called and was told that they had activated only one phone line the week prior, not nine phone lines. As the customer wanted additional phone lines, they discussed the iPhone 15 device with a $10.00 credit for 24 months, $85.00 for unlimited US calling with 150 GB, at a price of $40.04 per month. The customer was aware this was for nine renewals, and the connection fee would be waived.
    • Although a $10.00 credit was found in the account notes, the discount found in the customer’s contract amounted to zero ($0.00) dollars for 24 months for all phones.
  • On November 16 and November 20, 2023, the customer called to inquire about the billing and indicated they were missing discounts. The service provider credited the customer $224.00 for incorrect Easy Payment charges on some lines.
  • We note that there is no indication of the customer requesting a cancellation as a result of the permanent copy of the agreement not matching the agreement made over the phone.
  • The account notes demonstrated that on October 21, 2024, due to an internal audit, the customer was found to be no longer eligible for credits or discounts, and the discounts were removed.
  • On November 11 and December 2, 9, and 10, 2024, the customer was informed that to be eligible for the discounts, they would need to have a secondary service added to the account in the amount of $60.00 + tax. As the customer was no longer eligible for credits, the provider could offer a credit on the next invoice.
    • On December 9, 2024, the service provider informed the customer that they no longer had the call recording from October 24, 2023, as call recordings are kept for 90 days for training and security purposes.
  • On March 20, 2025, the customer requested a review of the file and was informed that they would receive a credit of $250.00 to be reflected on the next billing cycle. The customer had requested to have the outstanding balance of $448.35 credited. The service provider indicated they would review the request and call the customer back.
• We inquired with the service provider as to why the promotions were removed from the customer’s service plans, and in an email to us dated December 11, 2024, the service provider explained that on October 21, 2024, its internal audit team determined that the customer was no longer eligible for the discounts, as the customer is not signed up to another business service such as internet. Further, in an email dated April 28, 2025, the service provider confirmed that the discounts were originally offered as a cross-sell discount, which required multiple services to be eligible. Therefore, the service provider suggested that the customer did not quality for the discounts and that the discounts were offered in error. It also confirmed that the customer’s eligibility did not change.
• We note that the customer confirmed that they were not disputing invoices prior to the point at which the credits were removed in 2024. As a result, we reviewed the customer’s invoices for September 2024 through January 2025, as well as their March 2025 invoice, and note that while the permanent copy of the contract did not include any discounts to be applied to the term, the customer did receive multiple discounts.
  • The September 7, and October 7, 2024, invoices included a multi-unit discount of $250.00 and a 20% promotion discount of $170.00, as well as a $4.42 (before tax) discount.
  • The November 7, 2024, invoice has a multi-unit discount of $250.00.
  • The December 7, 2024, invoice has a multi-unit discount of $250.00, a monthly credit before tax of $4.42, and a monthly renewal credit of $79.65 (for 9 units).
  • The January 7, 2025, invoice showed a credit of $422.00. This credit was offered as a goodwill gesture for November and December 2024, as the customer was no longer eligible for the original credits. In addition, there is a multi-unit discount of $250.00, a monthly credit before tax of $4.42, a 20% promotional discount of $34.00 (for two units), and a monthly renewal credit of $79.65 (for nine units).
  • The March 7, 2025 invoice includes a multi-unit discount of $250.00, a monthly credit before tax of $4.42, a 20% promotional discount of $34.00 (for two units), a monthly renewal credit of $79.65 (for nine units) and a recuring credit of $3.93.
• As a result, we find that the service provider failed in its obligations further to section A.1 of the Wireless Code to accurately reflect the agreement made on October 24, 2023, on the permanent agreement, which led to the $10.00 credit not being applied for 24 months. That said, we note that the evidence did not demonstrate that any other monthly discount would be applied to the agreement made on this day. Despite this, the service provider applied several credits that exceed the value of the $10.00 credit for 24 months. Further, the terms of service clearly outline that customer eligibility can be reviewed from time to time and that the service provider may remove the discount or credit without prior notice.

Issue 2: The customer’s complaint is that the service provider did not apply promised credit(s), discount(s) or refund(s).

• The customer’s complaint is that during a phone call with the service provider connected to Issue 1 above, on March 11, 2025, the service provider allegedly offered to reduce the current amount owing on the customer’s account by $448.35.
• As noted above in Issue 1, we reviewed the service provider’s terms of service and note that the customer must continue to meet the eligibility requirements to have the discounts, credits or promotions on their account.
  • The terms also stated that the service provider will check eligibility from time to time, that customers can become ineligible and that the service provider may remove the discount or credit without prior notice.
• We asked to listen to the March 11, 2025, call recording, however, the service provider confirmed that, because it was an outbound call, it was not recorded.
• We reviewed the account notes and confirmed:
  • On March 11, 2025, the customer had their account reviewed, and they were informed that an adjustment of $250.00 would be reflected on the next billing cycle. The customer had requested to have the outstanding balance of $448.35 credited. The service provider indicated they would review the request and call the customer back.
  • Our review of the documentation did not find any evidence to demonstrate that the service provider agreed to meet the customer’s request.
  • Further, we asked the service provider to confirm whether the customer was provided the $250.00 found in the March 11, 2025, account note; the service provider confirmed that this $250.00 was not a new credit; instead, it referred to existing multi-unit discounts still on the account.
• We confirmed with the service provider that no new credits were applied to the customer’s account between March 11, 2025, and the time of this report in May 2025.
• Given that there is no evidence to substantiate whether the credit requested by the customer was approved, from a review of the account notes, we can only confirm that the customer requested the credit and the service provider indicated it would review the request.
• Under the terms of service, a service provider is under no obligation to award credits simply because a customer requests them.
• Therefore, based on the evidence available, we find that the service provider has met their obligation to the customer.

• In deciding whether to award compensation and, if so, the amount, we consider several factors, including the severity of the issue and related costs, the responsiveness of the service provider, the reasonableness of the complainant in communicating with CCTS and the service provider and the total number of hours spent by the complainant in pursuing a resolution.
• The customer did not request compensation; however, they did request that the service provider honour the discounts specified in their contract.
• On October 24, 2023, the customer entered into an agreement with the service provider for nine phone lines, and although notes included a $10.00 discount for a period of 24 months, the contract did not include this credit. While we acknowledge a technical failure on the part of the service provider for not including the $10.00 credit for 24 months in the customer’s contract, we accept that the customer was provided with a credit of $224.00 on November 20, 2023, and has been granted additional credits and discounts over their contract term.
• Further, we note that, as set out in section B.1.i(c) of the Wireless Code, the customer had the opportunity to cancel their agreement without penalty 30 days after receiving the permanent copy of the contract and did not do so.
• Due to the discounts the customer has received despite the absence of discounts in both the documented agreement on October 24, 2024, and the permanent copy of the contract, we find that the inconvenience resulting from the service provider’s failure is considered minimal.
• In light of the above factors, we do not find additional compensation is warranted for the service provider’s failure.