Bell seeks CRTC clarity amid class action alleging unreasonable prison call rates

BCE Inc. filed a Part 1 application with the CRTC seeking clarity on three key areas of uncertainty identified by the Ontario Court of Appeal, in response to a proposed class proceeding alleging that Bell charged unreasonable rates for long-distance calls from Ontario correctional facilities between 2013 and 2021. Goldblatt Partners LLP submitted a class application on behalf of class representatives, initiating the proposed class proceeding. The lawsuit alleges that between 2013 and 2021, the period Bell held the contract for the telephone systems for people detained in Ontario correctional facilities, 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 Superior Court agreed, and stayed the action pending a decision from the CRTC about whether or not to accept the dispute. In a Part 1 application submitted in November, Goldblatt and Sotos LLP ask that the regulator determine whether it or the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services (CCTS) should hear the complaint. The first question at hand for the CRTC, should it decide to take up the complaint, is whether or not long-distance rates in Ontario prisons are forborne from regulation. Second, the CRTC must decide whether or not it can set retroactive long-distance rates for calls from the prisoners for the period between June 2013, and July 2021 when Bell held the contract. However, Bell Canada argues that the class application did not comprehensively cover all the "areas of uncertainty" outlined by the Ontario Court of Appeal. As a result, Bell Canada has submitted the Part 1 to ensure that the commission addresses all three areas highlighted by the court. During the period in question, inmates used the Offender Telephone Management System (OTMS), established by the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Bell's telephony services for the OTMS were offered under the CRTC-approved tariff known as the Inmate Service Tariff. The tariff specifies that inmate service calls are to be "rated in the same manner as calls originating from other public telephones." Bell asserts that all charges during the period were compliant with the Inmate Service tariff. The motion judge at the initial stage of the proposed class proceeding acknowledged the CRTC's jurisdiction and, in deference to its specialized expertise, permanently stayed the proceeding. The Ontario Court of Appeal supported the motion judge's analysis but highlighted a potential oversight regarding the CRTC's adjudication on the reasonableness of long-distance rates. The three areas of uncertainty identified by the Ontario Court of Appeal 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 Canada'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. Bell has requested the merging of proceedings associated with its application and the class application. This request is made with the understanding that the class applicants will be given an extended thirty days to reply to Bell's intervention, rather than the typical ten days. – Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Paul Park at ppark@thewirereport.ca

Bell seeks CRTC clarity amid class action alleging unreasonable prison call rates

News | January 15, 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

Bell seeks CRTC clarity amid class action alleging unreasonable prison call rates

News | January 15, 2024

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

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telus’ arguments for incumbent access to wholesale regime not supported by competitors

Bell won’t participate in subsidized broadband projects if wholesale access for Big Three continues, signs agreement with CNOC

Rogers’ purchase of Bell’s MLSE stake not being challenged by Competition Bureau ‘at this time’

Telecom industry players look to Senate for greater copper theft prevention

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us