Earlier this month, the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission ("CRTC") released three
decisions imposing administrative monetary penalties
In one case, the CRTC imposed an AMP of Cdn. $18,000
on a company for (a) sending telemarketing fax to consumers whose
fax numbers should have been on the company's internal do not
call list and (b) telemarketing without being registered with the
National Do Not Call List operator. The CRTC rejected the
company's due diligence defence. The company argued that its
errors were not systemic. However, the CRTC stated that the company
did not submit evidence of steps it had taken or business practices
it had adopted that would demonstrate due diligence in preventing
calls to consumers whose numbers were or should have been on its
internal do not call list.
In another case, the CRTC imposed an AMP of $8,000 for
making telemarketing calls to consumers registered on the National
Do-Not-Call List and for making telemarketing calls without having
paid all applicable fees to the National Do-Not-Call List operator.
In rejecting the company's due diligence defence, the CRTC
noted that the company provided no evidence that it had developed a
process to prevent unwanted calls.
In the final case, the CRTC affirmed a prior decision
imposing an AMP of $6,000 for making telecommunications calls to
consumers whose numbers were registered on the National Do-Not-Call
List and for failing to register with and pay all fees to the
National Do-Not-Call List operator.
These cases illustrate the importance of having a documented
process for handling Do-Not-Call requests. Companies that do not
use professional telemarketers may especially wish to review the CRTC Unsolicited Communications Rules. The
Rules state that company wishing to establish a due diligence
defence should be able to demonstrate that:
the company has established and implemented adequate written
policies and procedures to comply with the Unsolicited
Telecommunications Rules and to honour consumers' requests that
they not be contacted for telemarketing;
staff are provided with adequate on-going training;
the company is using a National Do-Not-Call List that is not
more than 31 days old;
the company is using an Internal Do-Not-Call List that is no
more than 31 days old;
the company has implemented a documented process to prevent
telemarketing to a number that has been on the National or Internal
Do-Not-Call List for more than 31 days;
the company monitors and enforces compliance with the
Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules and the company's written
policies and procedures; and
in the case of a company that retains a third-party
telemarketer, the company has entered into an agreement between
itself and the telemarketer requiring the telemarketer to comply
with the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules.
FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law
firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices
located in the country's key business centres. We focus on
providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we
strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless
of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of
professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national
and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for
consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and
counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to
diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on
our clients' needs. Visit:
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Join our partners Karen Martin and Ryan Chalmers at the Pacific Business & Law Institute’s program, where they will be presenting a session titled "Procurement: Compliance with AIT, NWPTA, TILMA, NAFTA, TPP, CETA and the Statutes." This forum assembles leading government advisors to provide insights on key issues in local government today.
On March 9, 2016, the Canadian Securities Administrators published CSA Staff Notice 51-348 which reports on a study of social media use by reporting issuers and provides guidance for public companies who engage with investors and other stakeholders using those channels.
The B.C. Supreme Court's recent decision in Pritchard v. Van Nes (2016 BCSC 686) serves not only as a reminder that a poster of defamatory comments on social media can be held liable for the damage caused...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).