Conclusion d’enquête

After analyzing the information and evidence from both parties, we determined that the service provider met its obligations toward the customer and found no error in its handling of the issues brought forth.

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 provider increased the price of their postpaid wireless service since September 2024.
• The customer has 18 lines and claims that the service provider removed promotions and increased the price by $20 each month for their 18 lines. The customer is under contract until November 2025 and therefore cannot cancel the service. The customer called the provider six to eight times to resolve the issue but was unsuccessful.
• We reviewed Section A.1(i) of the Wireless Code and note that a service provider must communicate with customers in a way that is clear, timely, accurate, and uses plain language.
• We reviewed the provider’s terms of service and noted that:
  • Promotional offers, discounts and credits are completely discretionary on the provider and can be removed or withdrawn at the provider’s discretion.
  • The provider can make changes to contract terms, provided they give a 30-day notice via email, online post or invoice notification.
  • The customer is responsible for checking online for any amendments to the service given they have an internet connection.
  • The provider’s terms did not indicate a requirement to notify the customer of the removal of discounts that were not part of the customer’s agreements.
• In order to determine the service provider’s obligations, we reviewed the service agreements, and note:
  • For line 1 and lines 4 through 7: The customer was on a 24-month agreement for their postpaid wireless service, which began November 26, 2023. The regular monthly price was $100 before tax and any discounts. The customer’s agreement had no mention of any discounts or promotions. The lines each had the same financed device; the monthly device price was $40.00.
    • The customer completed a hardware upgrade for line 1 on December 31, 2023 and kept the same service plan, but the monthly financed device price changed to $32.50.
  • For line 2: The customer was on a 24-month agreement for their postpaid wireless service, which began December 31, 2023. The regular monthly price was $85 before tax and any discounts. The customer’s agreement had no mention of any discounts or promotions. Line 2 had a financed device; the monthly device price was $31.33.
  • For line 3: The customer was on a 24-month agreement for their postpaid wireless service, which began November 26, 2023. The regular monthly price was $100 before tax and any discounts. The customer’s agreement had no mention of any discounts or promotions. Line 3 had a financed device; the monthly device price was $43.33.
  • For lines 8 through 15: The customer was on a 24-month agreement for their postpaid wireless service, which began September 1, 2023. The regular monthly price was $100 before tax and any discounts. The customer’s agreement had no mention of any discounts or promotions on the monthly plan. Each line had a financed device; the monthly device price was $0.00 due to a highly discounted device price.
  • For lines 16 through 18: The customer was on a 24-month agreement for their postpaid wireless service, which began November 26, 2023. The regular monthly price was $100 before tax and any discounts. The customer’s agreement had no mention of any discounts or promotions on the monthly plan. Each line had a financed device; the monthly device price was $0.00 due to a highly discounted device price.
  • The customer had 15-day trial periods for all of the above agreements. All of the agreements had bring the device back programs and early cancellation fees.
  • Pay-per-use services were not included in the agreement and were charged separately.
• We reviewed invoices from January 2024 to July 2025 and noted the following:
  • The customer was billed in accordance with their agreement, and taxes. That said the invoices demonstrate that the customer also received the following credits on the lines under dispute:
    • The customer had the following discounts from September 2024 to May 2025: Plan for $900.00; Plan for $800.00; Plan for $100.00; Combined Multi-Unit Discounts of $540; Monthly Discounts of $267.16; 20% Promotional Discount for $500.00; 20% Cross-Sell discount of $220.00.
    • Additionally, for the months of September 2024 and October 2024 the customer had a discount of $132.75 and $66.30 applied as monthly credit per line on 15 lines, which were removed after October 2024.
    • From September 2024 to February 2025, the customer also received a monthly credit of $17.70 on two lines, which was removed after February 2025.
• We reviewed the account notes for the period of dispute (December 2023 to February 2025), and noted the following:
  • The service provider found that the customer’s account had discounts that they were not eligible for or were duplicates (outside the contracts) and advised the customer of this from October 16, 2024 to October 18, 2024; the discounts were subsequently removed on November 8, 2024.
    • On October 16, 2024, the customer was contacted and advised that a review of their account revealed that multiple discounts were doubled on many lines and would be removed, as the provider cannot apply double discounts. The customer asked to speak to a supervisor. An example of a double discount to be removed was a CAN-US Plan, a 20% Promotional Discount and an $8.85 monthly credit (before tax) that was applied twice. On the same day, a call was made as a first attempt to reach the customer, no answer was noted, and a voicemail was left. The lines in question were noted to be line 9, line 10 and line 11.
    • On October 17, 2024, the customer was informed by chat that the reason they were not getting a discount for the two lines they were disputing (lines 9 and 11) was that the lines were activated on August 28, 2023 and then renewed on December 1, 2023. As such, it fell under the credit drop under bring your own device to early renewal, hence the loss of discounts. The provider also did additional checks on the customer’s account and informed the customer that multiple discounts were doubled on many of the lines and would be removed, as the provider cannot apply double discounts. The customer was also given an example of removal on lines 9 and 11.
    • On October 18, 2024, it was noted that three attempts were made to advise the customer of the upcoming credit removal, but the customer was unresponsive.
  • On November 8, 2024, the credits were removed as the customer was not eligible for them, and it was noted that the reason for credit removal was early renewal of service in December 2023 and that the customer had taken advantage of the misapplied credits since then on lines 1 to 8 and 12 to 18.
  • On November 26, 2024, the customer disputed the bill increase issue and was advised it was due to the removal of invalid credits/discounts following an audit. The customer was also advised that they had notified of this earlier, on October 16, 2024. The customer was also sent a copy of the lines affected by the credit removal.
  • From December 5, 2024 onward, the customer disputed the issue and was advised by the provider once again on December 24, 2024 that the discounts could not be reapplied.
    • On March 7, 2025, the provider noted the customer was unresponsive to all phone calls and emails over the previous week and a half. An agreement had been reached where all lines would remain on the $30 plan after discounts, except for six lines that would be adjusted to $25 after discounts. The customer was to provide the six specific line numbers for the price adjustment and confirm the credit amount of $125. Despite the customer’s commitment to follow up, the provider received no response.
• We reviewed the provider’s email correspondence dated March 7, 2025, and noted that the provider made an offer for all lines to remain on the $30 plus tax plan after discounts, except for six lines, which would be adjusted to $25 plus tax after discounts. Additionally, a backdated credit of $125 was applied to the account. The customer declined the offer on March 13, 2025.
• We reviewed the screenshot of the customer’s account shared by the provider and noted that the customer’s current method for bill delivery is online e-billing via SMS notification where they are given the amount of their invoice. The customer then logs in online to see a full breakdown of the invoice. We also reviewed screenshots showing that the notification was sent to the customer each month, from January 2025 to July 2025.
• As a result, we conclude that the service provider billed the customer as per their agreement, and that the credits that were removed, thereby increasing the customer’s pricing, were additional credits the customer was receiving outside of their contract. Because the service provider had the ability to remove these credits if the customer did not meet the eligibility requirements, they were removed in accordance with the service provider’s terms.
• As such, we find that the service provider met its obligations.