Telemarketing Update: CRTC Refuses to Vary Do Not Call List Penalty Imposed on Telemarketing Company
On February 13, 2012, the CRTC denied an application by Les Distributions Triple A Inc. (“Triple A”) to review an earlier decision imposing a $6,000 administrative monetary penalty (“AMP”).
In the earlier decision, the Commission imposed a total $6,000 AMP for violations of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules, in relation to calls to consumers registered on the National Do Not Call List (“DNCL”) and for failing to pay applicable DNCL subscription fees.
Triple A sought to have the earlier decision annulled on several grounds, including that it only initiates calls for market research and the AMP imposed was a substantial amount for a small business.
In reviewing Triple A’s application, the Commission considered the criteria for reviewing, rescinding or varying Commission decisions, relying on Telecom Public Notice 98-6 to find that applicants must show that there is a “substantial doubt as to the correctness” of the original decision due to, for example, an error in law in fact, a fundamental change in circumstances or facts or a failure to consider a basic principle raised in the original proceeding (or a new principle arising from the decision).
The Commission found, among other things, that there were no errors in fact or law. In particular, the Commission found that it did not err in finding that Triple A had initiated three telemarketing calls to numbers listed on the DNCL or regarding the amount of the AMP imposed.
With respect to the AMP imposed, the Commission was critical of Triple A finding that it provided no reason as to why the Commission should deviate from the finding at first instance that a first-time penalty of $1,000 for each of the six violations was appropriate in this case (and also that the AMPs imposed were consistent with Commission practices for first violations).
In conclusion, the Commission held that Triple A failed to show that there was substantial doubt as to the correctness of the earlier decision and denied its application to review the AMP imposed.
For more information about our regulatory law services contact: contact
For more regulatory law updates follow us on Twitter: @CanadaAttorney