CCTS says complaints on Bell prison call rates fall outside its scope; Telus advocates for CRTC jurisdiction in dispute

The Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (CCTS) is arguing to the CRTC that complaints regarding long-distance collect call rates from Ontario correctional facilities submitted by Goldblatt Partners LLP fall outside its mandate, as issues related to pricing, eligibility of complainants, class complaints, and its requested remedy exceed its authority. “The matter is best addressed in another forum that is better positioned to consider the systemic relief requested by the applicants,” the CCTS wrote in an intervention submitted to the commission last week. Goldblatt Partners LLP, representing Ransome Capay and Vanessa Fareau, submitted a Part 1 application to the CRTC, at the request of the courts, regarding long-distance collect call rates from Ontario correctional facilities. The application questions the justifiability of BCE Inc.’s rates between June 1, 2013, and July 29, 2021, seeking a determination from either the CCTS or the CRTC, along with potential damages, financial remedies, and reimbursements for consumers if the rates are deemed unjust and unreasonable. The initial lawsuit alleges that the rates Bell charged for collect calls violated provincial consumer protection legislation and were “unconscionable.” Both Bell and the Ontario government argued that the class action should be stayed for lack of jurisdiction. The Ontario Court of Appeal temporarily stayed the class proceeding on May 5, 2023, pending a decision from the CRTC about whether or not to accept the dispute. The CCTS, an independent organization specializing in the resolution of telecom complaints related to telecommunications and television services, argues that the applicants' complaints do not fall within its mandate for several reasons. The CCTS notes that complaints about the pricing of services are beyond its jurisdiction, as it can only address billing issues and correctness, not the appropriateness or reasonableness of prices and that it is designed for individual complaints with no authority to consider complaints filed on behalf of a class of individuals. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) also intervened in the battle over Ontario inmate phone call rates to weigh in on whether the inmate long-distance calling rates are forborne from price regulation. PIAC contends that the inmate long-distance calling rates should continue to be treated as forborne, and the CRTC should acknowledge this status in its determinations. PIAC noted that in 1997 the CRTC made a regulatory decision not to impose pricing regulations on these particular services. PIAC argues that the CRTC lacks the jurisdiction to retroactively "de-forbear" or "re-regulate" rates under the Telecommunications Act. The organization suggests that if there is a need to investigate past rates, the court system is better positioned to handle the matter, emphasizing that the CRTC should defer to the Ontario courts. PIAC disputes Bell and Ontario's argument that equal access — the ability of users to choose their long-distance carrier — is not available for inmate calling due to security concerns. "This is a convenient, and self-serving, interpretation of equal access and is wrong,” PIAC wrote. “It is pure sophistry to claim that the correctional facilities served under the Bell-Ontario contract in question were in “non-equal access areas…” PIAC argued that the local access transport areas (LATAs) where the correctional facilities are located have switches at Bell central offices that can provide equal access. “Whether the contract between Bell and Ontario disables equal access for security reasons or not does not magically change the correctional facilities into tiny non-equal access city-states.” Telus Corp. on the other hand is arguing that the matter is best suited for the CRTC because it has exclusive jurisdiction over rates of telecommunications services and that the adjudication of the applicants' claims requires an expert understanding of the regulatory frameworks, making the CRTC the appropriate forum. In its intervention, the company asserted that the long-distance collect telephone rates in question are conditionally and partially forborne — while the CRTC cannot retroactively set the rates, it retains certain powers and duties to impose conditions and ensure rates are just and reasonable. Telus argues that even if the CRTC cannot grant the precise relief requested, the courts should not intrude into the regulator’s domain. "There is a robust system that enables consumers to seek redress against providers of telecommunications services, including in respect of forborne services. An express indication by the commission to this effect will help to dispel uncertainty in this regard and prevent intrusion into a carefully regulated environment,” Telus wrote. Telus cautions that allowing provincial courts to regulate and set rates would disrupt the federal regulatory scheme and undermine the Commission's frameworks, as well as industry investment and innovation. Bell, in response, filed its own Part 1 application with the CRTC seeking clarity on three key areas of uncertainty identified by the Ontario Court of Appeal which include: uncertainty about whether the CRTC has forborne from regulating inmate service long-distance call rates; ambiguity regarding the applicability of forbearance to inmate service long-distance calls, considering inmates’ limited access to the long-distance provider of their choice; uncertainty about whether the commission would reconsider its forbearance decision. While the class application covered the first two areas, it did not specifically address the third area of uncertainty. Bell ’s separate Part 1 Application aims to formally expand the scope of issues for review by the commission. Bell, in its application, requests the commission to confirm that it did not forbear from its powers and duties regarding Bell’s inmate service offerings. Alternatively, if forbearance occurred, the commission should clarify that it does not result in an abdication of jurisdiction and that it retains the authority to intervene if necessary, Bell argued. – Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca

CCTS says complaints on Bell prison call rates fall outside its scope; Telus advocates for CRTC jurisdiction in dispute

Court | January 16, 2024

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

CCTS says complaints on Bell prison call rates fall outside its scope; Telus advocates for CRTC jurisdiction in dispute

Court | January 16, 2024

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Competition Bureau suing Google for alleged anti-competitive ad practices

Terrestar takes CRTC spectrum revenue decision to Federal Court of Appeal

Legal dispute between Bell, Rogers over Discovery channels ends

SaskTel seeks judicial review, appeal of CRTC wholesale fibre decision

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us