Investigation Finding Report

After analyzing the information and evidence from both parties, we determined that the service provider reasonably performed its obligations towards the customer and found no error in its handling of the issue brought forth.

Issue 1: The customer’s complaint is that the service provider increased the monthly charges for the customer’s service.

• The customer is disputing the increase applied by their service provider in March 2025 to their monthly wireless service charges.
• Specifically, the customer claims that their service provider increased their monthly charges by $80.
• To determine the service provider’s obligations, we reviewed its Terms of Service, which state that the service provider will apply applicable discounts and promotions to a customer’s account provided they remain eligible to receive said promotion. Furthermore, the Terms of Service outline that the service provider may review a customer’s eligibility requirements at any time and if the customer becomes ineligible to receive a certain discount or promotion, the provider will remove it without prior notice.
• We reviewed the customer’s account notes and chat transcripts, which show that on November 7, 2024, the customer contacted the service provider to state that they wanted to
  cancel their Business Connect account. During this interaction, the service provider advised the customer that if they cancelled the Business Connect account, the $80 cross-sell discount on their mobility account would be removed. This would mean they would no longer be eligible for the cross-sell discount on their account, which would increase their monthly service charges from $165 to $250 plus taxes.
• A further review of the account notes shows that on January 22, 2025, the customer indicated that they were not aware of the cross-sell discount on their mobility account and that they were never informed during the sales transaction that to be eligible for the cross-sell discount, they needed to have an active Business Connect account.
• Despite this, the account notes indicate that the Business Connect account was cancelled on January 29, 2025.
• We reviewed the customer’s service agreement dated November 26, 2023, and we note that the customer is subscribed to a 24-month agreement starting November 26, 2023 and ending November 23, 2025. Furthermore, we note that the cross-sell discount was not listed on the customer’s service agreement. We confirmed that this agreement was signed by the customer.
• We reviewed the customer’s bills from November 2023 to February 2025, and we note that a 20% cross-sell discount was applied to them. However, further review of the customer’s bills from March 2025 to September 2025, show that the 20% cross sell discount was not applied to the account. Hence, the $80 increase on the customer’s bills.
• The removal of this discount was the result of the cancellation of the Business Connect account in January 2025, which rendered the customer ineligible for this promotion.
• Althogh the customer claims that they were never informed that to be eligible for the cross-sell discount they had to have a Business Connect account, there is no call recording/call transcript of the initial sales transaction from November 2023, and this interaction would fall outside the CCTS’ limitation period. Therefore, we must review the documentation that is available, such as the customer’s bills, signed agreement, and account notes.
• As noted above, we confirmed that there was a signed Business Connect agreement dated November 27, 2023, and we note that on November 7, 2024, the service provider advised the customer that if they cancelled the Business Connect account, the cross-sell discount on their account would be removed, resulting in an $80 increase in their mobility account charges. We note that, following the cancellation of the Business Connect account in January 2025, the cross-sell discount was eventually removed, starting with the customer’s March 2025 bill, and as a result, their monthly bill was increased by $80.
• Based on our findings, we conclude that the service provider reasonably met its obligations pertaining to the customer’s claim of wrongdoing.