Sans fil – D.1. Modification des principales modalités du contrat
Obligations respectées : Oui
Date : 04/17/2026
Langue : Anglais
ID du rapport : 1060
Overview
This report documents our findings and prescribed remedies for the following issue raised by the customer:
The customer’s complaint is that the service provider billed the customer incorrectly for the recurring monthly service plan or feature.
Please note that, in their complaint, the customer also submitted issues that fall outside of the scope of our mandate and fall outside of our limitation period. As a result, our investigation findings are based solely on the numbered issues listed above.
Summary of Findings
After analyzing the information and evidence from both parties, we determined that the service provider reasonably performed its obligations toward the customer and found no error in its handling of the issues brought forth.
Analysis Details
Issue 1: The customer’s complaint is that the service provider billed the customer incorrectly for the recurring monthly service plan or feature.
The customer complains that the service provider charged them $29 per month for two postpaid wireless service lines, which they claim they did not use and therefore should not have been billed for.
While we note that the customer disputes that the two lines had not been used prior to our limitation period and were eventually cancelled, the customer claims to have noticed the billing issue on February 4, 2025, when they saw a total balance of $537.60.
The customer claims that the provider charged them for data usage despite the customer not using said data.
As a result, this report reviews the service provider’s obligations in billing for the period within our limitation period.
We reviewed the provider’s Terms of Service and confirmed the following:
We note that at the end of the term, the service will automatically switch to month-to-month, with no changes to the existing service or agreement unless modified or cancelled.
We note that service charges start on the activation date and are billed monthly in advance. If the activation and billing dates do not align, the charges are prorated. Usage charges are billed after use and may be charged up to six months later.
We note that billing discrepancies must be reported within 90 days. If not, the charges are considered accepted. Unauthorized charges will be reversed within 30 days of notice.
We reviewed the agreements for both lines and confirmed the following:
The customer entered a new signed agreement for line 1 on December 17, 2021. This plan had a total monthly charge of $18.41, which included a $10 per month plan for wireless service (before tax) and a $8.41 monthly charge (with tax) for device financing. The agreement included a 24-month term for the device and was to expire on December 17, 2023. The total financed device price after tax was $201.60.
The second line had an agreement dated August 17, 2022. This line was on a month-to month service plan with a $10 monthly charge before tax. The plan had three add-ons for data: 25 GB and 10 GB of shared high-speed data, plus a 5 GB bonus each month, all at no extra cost.
We reviewed the screenshot of the customer’s account and noted that the customer cancelled their service for both lines on February 7, 2025.
We reviewed the invoices from January 2024 to March 2025 and the billing history, which show:
The customer was billed regular monthly charges; no additional data usage charges were billed and the customer was not billed after cancelling the service in February 2025.
There were no data usage charges for either of the lines on any of the invoices.
The customer was billed per the provider’s Terms of Service.
We reviewed the screenshot of the customer’s account shared by the provider and noted that the email address on file was the same address the customer has been using to correspond with CCTS. We reviewed screenshots showing that invoice notifications were sent by the provider each month to this email address.
We reviewed the account notes from January 2024 and February 2025 and noted the following:
On February 7, 2025, the customer cancelled service for both lines. The customer requested a refund of the charges billed for the services for the previous two years, telling the provider that they had never used the device and services. The provider advised the customer that the charges were valid and could not be refunded.
On February 19, 2025, the provider advised the customer that they had been receiving regular invoices, to which the customer replied they reviewed the invoices but not consistently. The provider informed the customer that the lines under dispute were charged as per the provider’s agreement, and it was the customer’s responsibility to cancel any service no longer needed by them.
As a result of the analysis above, we conclude that the provider fulfilled its obligations and billed the customer correctly for their service, and that the charges were part of the customer’s monthly plan, not additional charges for extra usage.