Investigation Finding Report

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

1. Provide a credit in the amount of $344.01 (tax included) for the missing discounts since November 2024.
2. Reapply all credits so that the customer’s monthly total is $169.39, plus taxes, for the balance of the commitment term.
3. Compensate the customer for inconvenience, in an amount disclosed directly to the service provider and customer.

We expect it to complete these remedies should both parties accept these Investigation Findings.

Issue 1: The customer’s complaint is that the service provider billed the customer incorrectly for the recurring monthly service plan and device.

• The customer complains that they have been billed more for their wireless business services and devices than was agreed to.
• The customer states that on September 4, 2024, they started a new 2-year wireless agreement which included service for four lines and four subsidized devices for a monthly total of $169.39. This is confirmed by the customer, who provided an email they received from the service provider with this exact monthly total. However, the customer contends that since the first invoice, dated September 5, 2024, they have been billed more than the agreed to price.
• The service provider’s Terms of Service for business customers indicates that customers may be eligible to receive a discount on their monthly charges if they subscribe to multiple services at the same time and meet all eligibility requirements applicable to such discount. The service provider reserves the right to cancel or remove the discount or other promotional offers at any time without prior notice if: (i) the customer no longer subscribes to multiple services at the same time such that the services are unbundled, or (ii) the customer no longer meets the required qualifications to receive the applicable discount.
• Section A.1(ii) of the Wireless Code indicates that a service provider must ensure that its written contracts and related documents, such as privacy policies and fair use policies, are written and communicated in a way that is clear and easy for customers to read and understand.
• A review of the agreement dated September 4, 2024, confirms that the customer would be billed for four lines and four devices. The monthly device charges are $15.82, $15.82, $25.83, and $25.83. In addition, each line has a monthly price plan of $105.00. We confirm that these charges are consistent with the details provided in the email the customer received from the service provider, except that two of the devices are $0.01 more in the email.
• Furthermore, the email offer the customer received from the service provider also lists five discounts that are not reflected in the agreement:
  • Bundle Credit $50/line x4 = $200.00
  • Pre-Authorized Payment Discount of $5/line x4 = $20.00
  • Monthly Credit x4 = $85.00 o $5 Bundle Discount x4 = $20
  • Activation Monthly Credit x1 = $8.93
• It’s important to note that under the “Terms” section of the email, it is indicated that these discounts are applied on a month-to-month basis. However, this lacks clarity as it is clearly outlined that the monthly total would be $169.39 before tax. There is no separate mention for the monthly total of services and devices and then discount totals.
• A review of invoices from September 2024 to December 2024 shows that the customer was billed correctly at $169.39 plus taxes per month, or all four devices and their service lines, less all the above itemized discounts in September and October 2024. However, as of November 2024, two discounts are removed: the monthly credit of $85.00 and the activation monthly credit of $8.93. Subsequently, we see that as of December 2024, a third discount, the Bundle Discount of $20.00, disappeared without notice.
• The service provider offered three conflicting reasons for the removal of the customer’s discounts: first, claiming the customer did not qualify. Second, stating that the customer ceased to be eligible, and finally, asserting that the discounts had a two-year expiration ending in October/November 2024 as part of a previous contract. These shifting explanations are inconsistent and raise concerns about the legitimacy of the discount removal.
• Furthermore, we note that regarding the service provider’s claim that the customer was no longer eligible for the multi-product discount, the customer provided at conciliation the relevant account numbers for additional services they are subscribed to, which were shared with the service provider. The service provider responded that the business account was not in the customer’s name and therefore had not been identified.
• However, the fact that the discount was applied during the initial months suggests the service provider was, or should have been, aware of the associated business accounts from the outset.
• Between January and April 2025, multiple credits were issued, and discounts reapplied to the customer’s account. On January 30, 2025, the service provider applied a credit of $227.86 plus taxes to cover the missing discount for the previous two months, as confirmed on the February 2025 invoice. In addition, a recurring monthly credit of $18.97 plus taxes was applied to each of the four lines for the remaining 19 months of the contract, as reflected in the invoices from February to June 2025. Furthermore, beginning with the April 2025 invoice, a credit of $6.47 plus taxes began being applied to one of the lines. However, these reapplied discounts do not reduce the customer’s total monthly charges to the initially-offered amount of $169.39 per month.
• That said, we note that the contracts and the confirmation email the customer received are not fully aligned and lack clarity. The email only presents a single total monthly amount of $169.39 before tax, without specifying the total monthly price before discounts are applied. Therefore, it is not clear to the customer that the monthly plan price could increase if those discounts were removed. This breaches section A.1(ii) of the Wireless Code.
• The customer consistently paid all invoices in full each month, despite actively disputing the billed amounts.
• As a result, we find the service provider did not meet its obligation to the customer because the customer was clearly informed of a monthly total of $169.39 for two years after promised discounts are applied, yet two months into their 24-month contract, this amount was no longer respected. We require the service provider to provide a credit of $344.01 (tax included) for the missing discounts since November 2024. We also require the service provider to honour the originally promised monthly pricing of $169.39 before tax, which includes all discounts outlined in the fifth bullet point, for the remainder of the 2-year term.

• 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 the CCTS and the service provider and the total number of hours spent by the complainant in pursuing a resolution.
• We have determined that the service provider failed to meet its obligations when incorrectly billing the customer since November 2024. We also note that as of September 2025, the customer has been overbilled by $344.01 (tax included), yet they continue to pay all invoices in full and on time.
• The customer requested compensation for the inconvenience and time lost in attempting to resolve this issue with the service provider, noting no monetary losses other than the overbilling. While we expect customers to work with their service providers to resolve complaints, we observe that the customer had to contact the service provider at least seven times between September 2024 and January 2025 to report the billing error, and the service provider still did not fix the issue. When we accepted the complaint, the service provider had another opportunity to fix its error but failed to do so by providing only a partial credit and reapplying partial discounts.
• We note that the repeated removal without notice and reapplication of full or partial discounts between November 2024 and April 2025, with the total invoice amounts never aligning, can understandably be very confusing for the customer. We also note the conflicting explanations the service provider gave to CCTS regarding the reasons for removing the discounts.
• In light of the inconvenience experienced by the customer as a result of the service provider’s above-described actions, we require the service provider to provide monetary compensation to the customer for inconvenience, in an amount disclosed directly to the service provider and customer