Class members defined in suit against Bell over prison phone contract

A would-be class-action lawsuit filed against BCE Inc. and the province of Ontario over “unconscionable” telephone rates for prisoners has been updated to make clearer who could be eligible class members and suggests neither Bell nor the province should benefit from the profits. An amended statement of claim submitted by Goldblatt Partners and co-counsel for the plaintiffs Sotos Class Actions clarifies that the aim is for class members of the action -- which has not yet been certified -- to be people who paid for a collect call originating from a prisoner using the “Offender Telephone Management System” (OTMS) provided by Bell. The suit, which seeks damage of $152 million, plus punitive damages of $10 million, was first filed early last year. It alleges Bell “engaged in unfair practices” contrary to section 15 of the Ontario Consumer Protection Act during its contract to operate Ontario prisons’ phone system. It said Bell gave prisoners one option: place collect calls to landlines at exorbitant and unconscionable prices extracted from anyone who accepted the calls. The claim was later updated to allege Bell, in “failing to disclose in advance or display to the Class Members the rates to be charged on Collect Calls and, amongst others, any surcharge, markup, or location charges not included in the price of the call” violated section 24 of the Telecommunications Act. Beyond other clarifications, another newer amendment to the statement of claim further explains that Bell and the province should not be able to benefit from the profits allegedly generated by the two in the alternative to the damages requested. The amended claim states the disgorgement of profits retained by Bell and the province “would serve a compensatory purpose.” “Absent the wrongful conduct, Class Members would not have suffered harm, and the Defendants would never have received profits arising from the OTMS.” The claim also states these profits were made as a result of breaches of statute and fiduciary duties. There are two proposed representative plaintiffs for the class action. The first, Ransome Capay, is a resident of the Lac Seul First Nation in western Ontario and incurred between $700 to over $1,000 in monthly phone bills talking to his son, who was held in pre-trial detention at the Thunder Bay Correctional Centre and Kenora Jail, hundreds of kilometres away. The second named plaintiff, Vanessa Fareau, was incarcerated for two months in pre-trial detention at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre after being denied bail while pregnant. “Ms. Fareau struggled to make arrangements to pay her own phone bills so that she could remain connected to her children. Ms. Fareau’s phone bills were often in the range of $200-$300, or more,” the suit says.

Class members defined in suit against Bell over prison phone contract

Brief | September 24, 2021

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

Class members defined in suit against Bell over prison phone contract

Brief | September 24, 2021

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Legal dispute between Bell, Rogers over Discovery channels ends

Rogers buys Bell’s stake in Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment for $4.7B

Iristel asks CRTC to penalize Northwestel for disconnection in billing dispute

Woman sues Bell, Nordia after alleged privacy breach by call centre employee

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us