CCTS Arbitration

Synopsis

Since early 2020 at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, SkyChoice has been making substantial efforts to get the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services to abide by their code of conduct which states that they should not process any complaints which are already being or have been handled by another agency capable of making binding decisions on consumer complaints.

As the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services refused our request for voluntary arbitration back on November 2020 which is a violation of their participating provider agreement, SkyChoice had no choice but to proceed with formal arbitration by engaging the Alternative Dispute Resolution Institute of Canada (ADRIC) who will oversee the arbitration process.

Why is this important?

As a telecommunications services provider, one of our primary objectives is to provide consumer satisfaction by offering fair, affordable and reliable high quality services for Canadians. In order to achieve this goal, we need to ensure that in the event of an escalated unresolved complaint, consumers have the right to choose the organization they feel most comfortable working with in order to resolve it. We also need to ensure that costs incurred to provide our services are not excessive in order to maintain affordability while still allowing us to reinvest into our network and services.

The high cost of Internet in Canada

Based on research by picodi.com on prices for Internet around the world, Canada is the 5th most expensive country in the world when it comes to Internet. Given today’s reliance of Internet given these challenging times, it is obvious that affordability for Internet in Canada is a major issue.

Currently, approximately 70% of the total costs to provide Internet service in Canada are regulated by the Federal Government. Although this mostly includes “last mile” access costs from Canada’s incumbent Telecom providers, CCTS complaint fees represent a significant cost not to be ignored.

Did you know that the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services charges telecom service providers up to $1006.68 for only a single complaint filed regardless if it gets resolved or not? Fees of that magnitude are disproportionate to the amount that consumers pay for service and could take years to recover. As service providers can’t recover costs directly from the complainant, the only option for them is to consider these excessive fees as an additional operating expense and increase prices for everyone. However, doing this goes against our mandate for affordability and fairness.

The right for consumers to choose

Consumers should have their right to choose which agency they feel most comfortable working to assist them with their unresolved escalated complaint. For federally regulated Telecom providers in Canada, agencies capable of providing binding resolution include the Better Business Bureau and Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services. As consumer rights is a top priority for us, SkyChoice is an accredited member of the Better Business Bureau.

However by doing so, it is important to avoid incurring unnecessary time, duplication of efforts and expenses by not allowing a complaint to be handled by more than one agency. However, even if it is against their code of conduct, the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services still processes complaints already being or have been handled by another agency and charging Telecom service providers as a result. This is not only unethical but is also unfair and at the end of the day, consumers end up losing as Telecom service providers eventually have to increase prices to recover the fees that were charged.

Keeping you informed

As SkyChoice values transparency to its customers, we will keep you informed of any developments of our arbitration efforts with the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services as they become available right here on our website at https://www.skychoice.ca/cctsarbitration During this arbitration process, rest assured that as an accredited member, the Better Business Bureau will continue to handle any unresolved escalated customer complaints.

TIMELINE OF KEY EVENTS

• November 6th, 2020 - As per section 8.12 of the CCTS participation agreement which provides all Participating Service Providers (PSP) the right for arbitration to resolve any dispute, controversy or claim, SkyChoice files a formal request for voluntary arbitration with the CCTS in order to resolve discrepancies in regards to their interpretation of the CCTS Procedural Code and the methods used to handle complaints by the CCTS being biased against PSP's.


• November 20th, 2020 - Kelsey Evaniew, CCTS legal counsel responds to our arbitration request via email stating that disagreements concerning the substance of any dispute submitted to the Commissioner are not arbitrable and as such, the CCTS would not be accepting the request made by SkyChoice for voluntary arbitration. SkyChoice responds stating that they disagree with the decision as it is already agreed upon in the CCTS participation agreement that any dispute, controversy or claim shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration.


• March 9th, 2020 - Despite our ongoing efforts to resolve these matters in good faith via arbitration, SkyChoice receives new correspondence from Pam Nwaogu, another legal counsel member for the CCTS accusing SkyChoice of being uncooperative and continued to deny SkyChoice's right for arbitration which is a clear violation by the CCTS of section 8.12 of their PSP participation agreement.


• May 20th, 2021 - SkyChoice provides a final response to the CCTS March 9th, 2021 correspondence indicating that unlike what they allege, SkyChoice was in fact responsive and cooperative but by denying their right for arbitration, it is in fact the CCTS who is not cooperative.


• July 22, 2021 - The CCTS publishes on their website that they terminated the participation of SkyChoice as a PSP and engages in an online "name and shame" campaign. Surprisingly over the coming weeks, SkyChoice receives correspondence from several other service providers stating that they share the same concerns and are also experiencing similar issues as SkyChoice with the CCTS.


• August 25th, 2021 - Janet Lo, CCTS Assistant Commissioner files an official objection to ADRIC, denying the right for CCTS Participating Service Provider (PSP) SkyChoice their right for arbitration.


• September 14th, 2021 - SkyChoice files a rebuttal to ADRIC invalidating the CCTS's August 25th objection indicating that the Participation agreement makes it very clear that: Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement (with the exception of collection disputes under section 48), including any question regarding its existence, interpretation, validity, breach or termination or the relationship created by it shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration under the ADR Chambers Expedited Arbitration Rules in force at the time the dispute, controversy or claim arises.


• September 24th, 2021 - In response to SkyChoice's rebuttal, the CCTS continues their objection to commence arbitration. Later on that day, ADRIC provides a formal response to both parties indicating that ADRIC is not authorized to deny arbirtation and that the matter must proceed in front of an arbitratior.


• October 26th, 2021 - Even though the CCTS has adequate in house legal counsel staff, SkyChoice and ADRIC receive notice from external law firm Stieber Berlach LLP that they have been retained by the CCTS as legal counsel to represent them during arbitration. While anyone has the right to retain counsel, Participating Service Providers will eventually end up footing the bill via future increases in fees. The CCTS later revealed that they consider our request for arbitration as having initiated legal proceedings which is certainly NOT the case as the courts are not involved.


• November 23rd, 2021 - As the CCTS continues their refusal to cooperate by mutually agreeing upon an arbitrator, SkyChoice files a formal request to ADRIC in order for them to appoint an arbitrator.


• May 10th, 2022 - Ironically while this matter is awaiting arbitration from ADRIC, SkyChoice is informed that the CCTS is revising its complaint handling procedures with the proposed changes addressing many of the concerns raised by SkyChoice in their request for arbitration. SkyChoice is invited to a virtural meeting organized by the CCTS with other PSP's to discuss these proposed changes and receives a Zoom meeting ID and passcode.


• May 12th, 2022 - SkyChoice prepares for the meeting by organizing a report of all issues identified by itself and other PSP's along with constructive and cost effective solutions, was planning to congratulate the CCTS for finally starting to work on revising its procedures and opening a dialogue with PSP's but that more still needs to be done. SkyChoice attempts to join the Zoom meeting they were invited and provided access to but are banned from joining by the host. Shortly afterwards, SkyChoice receives an email from Mathieu Pierre Dagonas, CCTS Stakeholder Affairs and Communications Director stating that we were sent this invitation in error and would not be allowed to participate in the meeting.