4 new Do Not Call List violators named
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Anyone who’s been following the Do Not Call List farce will be interested to know the number of telephone spammers to be identified has grown by at least four.
We knew about Peerless Mason Ltd and Rob Sugar, but, thanks to this Reader’s Write, we can now add Best Price Movers Ltd; McTavish Logistics Ltd; YYZ Logistics Ltd; and, Mouldaway Canada Inc.
As p2pnet posted on Tuesday, weight-loss entrepreneur Rob Sugar wants fines imposed on him for violating the list to be lifted.
Will the CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission), which is responsible for the list, grant his request?
While we wait to find out, below — as per the CRTC — are details of the latest transgressors, all dated September 30, 2009 »»»
In this decision, the Commission imposes administrative monetary penalties totalling $2,500 on Best Price Movers Ltd. for unsolicited telemarketing telecommunications initiated on its behalf to consumers whose telecommunications numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call List, in violation of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules.
1.Between 18 October 2008 and 16 March 2009, the Commission received numerous complaints in relation to telemarketing telecommunications made by Best Price Movers Ltd. (Best Price Movers). On 13 July 2009, a notice of violation was issued to Best Price Movers pursuant to section 72.07 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act). The notice alleged that telemarketing telecommunications were made on behalf of Best Price Movers Ltd. in violation of Part II, section 4 of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules (the Rules).1
2.Best Price Movers was given until 14 August 2009 to pay the administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) set out in the notice of violation or to make representations to the Commission with respect to the violations.2
3.On 3 September 2009, the Commission received representations by Ilya Nikitine on behalf of Best Price Movers. These representations were dated 31 August 2009 in accordance with the extension granted subsequent to the notice of violation.
4.In its representations, Best Price Movers submitted that natural justice permits it to orally examine under oath complainants who have filed affidavits. The Commission considers that in the circumstances Best Price Movers does not have a right to cross-examine those who have filed affidavits.
5.Best Price Movers alleged that the National Do Not Call List regime violates its right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by paragraph 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). The Commission notes that Charter rights and freedoms are not absolute and considers that the provisions applicable in this case are justified under section 1 of the Charter.
6.Best Price Movers did not address the findings set out in the 13 July 2009 notice of violation.
7.The Commission finds that telemarketing telecommunications were made on behalf of Best Price Movers in violation of Part II, section 4 of the Rules, as detailed in the 13 July 2009 notice of violation.
8.In the circumstances of this case, the Commission considers that a penalty totalling $2,500 for the violations committed by Best Price Movers, as verified through affidavits by complainants, to be appropriate. The Commission therefore imposes AMPs totalling $2,500 on Best Price Movers.
9.The Commission hereby notifies Best Price Movers of its right to apply to the Commission to review and rescind or vary this decision under section 62 of the Act and to appeal this decision to the Federal Court of Appeal under section 64 of the Act. Any review and vary application under section 62 must be made within 30 days of the date of this decision. An appeal from this decision may be brought in the Federal Court of Appeal with the leave of that Court. Leave to appeal must be applied for within 30 days of the date of this decision or within such further time as a judge of the Court grants in exceptional circumstances.
10.The amount of $2,500 is due by 30 October 2009 and is to be paid in accordance with the instructions contained in the notice of violation. For any amount owing that is not paid by 30 October 2009, interest calculated and compounded monthly at the average bank rate plus three percent will be payable on that amount and will accrue during the period beginning on the due date and ending on the day before the date on which payment is received.
11.If payment of the debt has not been received within 30 days of the date of this decision, the Commission intends to certify the unpaid amount and register the certificate with the Federal Court in order to collect the amount owing.
_____________________________
In this decision, the Commission imposes administrative monetary penalties totalling $5,000 on McTavish Logistics Ltd. for unsolicited telemarketing telecommunications initiated on its behalf to consumers whose telecommunications numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call List, and for the use of an automatic dialing-announcing device to make unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers on its behalf, in violation of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules.
1.Between 18 October 2008 and 16 March 2009, the Commission received numerous complaints in relation to telemarketing telecommunications made by McTavish Logistics Ltd. (McTavish Logistics). On 13 July 2009, a notice of violation was issued to McTavish Logistics pursuant to section 72.07 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act). The notice alleged that telemarketing telecommunications were made on behalf of McTavish Logistics in violation of Part II, section 4, and Part IV, section 2 of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules (the Rules).1
2.McTavish Logistics was given until 14 August 2009 to pay the administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) set out in the notice of violation or to make representations to the Commission with respect to the violations.2
3.On 3 September 2009, the Commission received representations by Ilya Nikitine on behalf of McTavish Logistics. These representations were dated 31 August 2009 in accordance with the extension granted subsequent to the notice of violation.
4.In its representations, McTavish Logistics submitted that natural justice permits it to orally examine under oath complainants who have filed affidavits. The Commission considers that in the circumstances McTavish Logistics does not have a right to cross-examine those who have filed affidavits.
5.McTavish Logistics alleged that the National Do Not Call List regime violates its right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by paragraph 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). The Commission notes that Charter rights and freedoms are not absolute and considers that the provisions applicable in this case are justified under section 1 of the Charter.
6.McTavish Logistics did not address the findings set out in the 13 July 2009 notice of violation.
7.The Commission finds that telemarketing telecommunications were made on behalf of McTavish Logistics in violation of Part II, section 4, and Part IV, section 2 of the Rules, as detailed in the 13 July 2009 notice of violation.
8.In the circumstances of this case, the Commission considers that a penalty totalling $5,000 for the violations committed by McTavish Logistics, as verified through affidavits by complainants, to be appropriate. The Commission therefore imposes AMPs totalling $5,000 on McTavish Logistics.
9.The Commission hereby notifies McTavish Logistics of its right to apply to the Commission to review and rescind or vary this decision under section 62 of the Act and to appeal this decision to the Federal Court of Appeal under section 64 of the Act. Any review and vary application under section 62 must be made within 30 days of the date of this decision. An appeal from this decision may be brought in the Federal Court of Appeal with the leave of that Court. Leave to appeal must be applied for within 30 days of the date of this decision or within such further time as a judge of the Court grants in exceptional circumstances.
10.The amount of $5,000 is due by 30 October 2009 and is to be paid in accordance with the instructions contained in the notice of violation. For any amount owing that is not paid by 30 October 2009, interest calculated and compounded monthly at the average bank rate plus three percent will be payable on that amount and will accrue during the period beginning on the due date and ending on the day before the date on which payment is received.
11.If payment of the debt has not been received within 30 days of the date of this decision, the Commission intends to certify the unpaid amount and register the certificate with the Federal Court in order to collect the amount owing.
Secretary General
This document is available in alternative format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
Footnotes:
1.Part II, section 4 of the Rules states that a telemarketer shall not initiate a telemarketing telecommunication to a consumer’s telecommunications number that is on the National Do Not Call List, unless express consent has been provided by such consumer to be contacted via a telemarketing telecommunication by that telemarketer. Part IV, section 2 of the Rules states that a telemarketer shall not initiate, and a client of a telemarketer shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the telemarketer does not initiate, a telemarketing telecommunication via an automatic dialing-announcing device (ADAD) unless express consent has been provided by the consumer to receive a telemarketing telecommunication via an ADAD from that telemarketer or the client of that telemarketer. For greater certainty and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this prohibition includes telemarketing telecommunications via an ADAD that are initiated by or on behalf of a charity, for the purpose of requesting a consumer to hold until a telemarketer is available, for activities such as radio station promotions, or for referring consumers to 900 or 976 service numbers.
2.This deadline was subsequently extended.
_____________________________
In this decision, the Commission imposes administrative monetary penalties totalling $5,000 on YYZ Logistics Ltd. for unsolicited telemarketing telecommunications initiated on its behalf to consumers whose telecommunications numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call List, and for the use of an automatic dialing-announcing device to make unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers on its behalf, in violation of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules.
1.Between 18 October 2008 and 16 March 2009, the Commission received numerous complaints in relation to telemarketing telecommunications made by YYZ Logistics Ltd. (YYZ Logistics). On 13 July 2009, a notice of violation was issued to YYZ Logistics pursuant to section 72.07 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act). The notice alleged that telemarketing telecommunications were made on behalf of YYZ Logistics Ltd. in violation of Part II, section 4, and Part IV, section 2 of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules (the Rules).1
2.YYZ Logistics was given until 14 August 2009 to pay the administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) set out in the notice of violation or to make representations to the Commission with respect to the violations.2
3.On 3 September 2009, the Commission received representations by Ilya Nikitine on behalf of YYZ Logistics. These representations were dated 31 August 2009 in accordance with the extension granted subsequent to the notice of violation.
4.In its representations, YYZ Logistics submitted that natural justice permits it to orally examine under oath complainants who have filed affidavits. The Commission considers that in the circumstances YYZ Logistics does not have a right to cross-examine those who have filed affidavits.
5.YYZ Logistics alleged that the National Do Not Call List regime violates its right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by paragraph 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). The Commission notes that Charter rights and freedoms are not absolute and considers that the provisions applicable in this case are justified under section 1 of the Charter.
6.YYZ Logistics did not address the findings set out in the 13 July 2009 notice of violation.
7.The Commission finds that telemarketing telecommunications were made on behalf of YYZ Logistics in violation of Part II, section 4, and Part IV, section 2 of the Rules, as detailed in the 13 July 2009 notice of violation.
8.In the circumstances of this case, the Commission considers that a penalty totalling $5,000 for the violations committed by YYZ Logistics, as verified through affidavits by complainants, to be appropriate. The Commission therefore imposes AMPs totalling $5,000 on YYZ Logistics.
9.The Commission hereby notifies YYZ Logistics of its right to apply to the Commission to review and rescind or vary this decision under section 62 of the Act and to appeal this decision to the Federal Court of Appeal under section 64 of the Act. Any review and vary application under section 62 must be made within 30 days of the date of this decision. An appeal from this decision may be brought in the Federal Court of Appeal with the leave of that Court. Leave to appeal must be applied for within 30 days of the date of this decision or within such further time as a judge of the Court grants in exceptional circumstances.
10.The amount of $5,000 is due by 30 October 2009 and is to be paid in accordance with the instructions contained in the notice of violation. For any amount owing that is not paid by 30 October 2009, interest calculated and compounded monthly at the average bank rate plus three percent will be payable on that amount and will accrue during the period beginning on the due date and ending on the day before the date on which payment is received.
11.If payment of the debt has not been received within 30 days of the date of this decision, the Commission intends to certify the unpaid amount and register the certificate with the Federal Court in order to collect the amount owing.
Secretary General
This document is available in alternative format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
Footnotes:
1.Part II, section 4 of the Rules states that a telemarketer shall not initiate a telemarketing telecommunication to a consumer’s telecommunications number that is on the National Do Not Call List, unless express consent has been provided by such consumer to be contacted via a telemarketing telecommunication by that telemarketer. Part IV, section 2 of the Rules states that a telemarketer shall not initiate, and a client of a telemarketer shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the telemarketer does not initiate, a telemarketing telecommunication via an automatic dialing-announcing device (ADAD) unless express consent has been provided by the consumer to receive a telemarketing telecommunication via an ADAD from that telemarketer or the client of that telemarketer. For greater certainty and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this prohibition includes telemarketing telecommunications via an ADAD that are initiated by or on behalf of a charity, for the purpose of requesting a consumer to hold until a telemarketer is available, for activities such as radio station promotions, or for referring consumers to 900 or 976 service numbers.
2.This deadline was subsequently extended.
_____________________________
In this decision, the Commission imposes administrative monetary penalties totalling $4,500 on Mouldaway Canada Inc. for initiating nine telemarketing telecommunications to consumers whose telecommunications numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call List (DNCL) and for initiating the telecommunications without paying all applicable subscription fees to the National DNCL operator, in violation of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules.
1.Between 9 November 2008 and 11 June 2009, the Commission received numerous complaints in relation to telemarketing telecommunications made by Mouldaway Canada Inc., carrying on business under the name Canadian Home Comfort (Mouldaway). On 6 July 2009, a notice of violation was issued to Mouldaway pursuant to section 72.07 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act). The notice alleged that Mouldaway had initiated nine telemarketing telecommunications to consumers whose numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call List (DNCL), in violation of Part II, section 4 of the Commission’s Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules (the Rules),1 and that the company had done so without having paid all applicable subscription fees to the National DNCL operator, in violation of Part II, section 6 of the Rules.2
2.Mouldaway was given until 4 August 2009 to pay the administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) set out in the notice of violation or to make representations to the Commission with respect to the violations.
3.The Commission notes that on 31 July 2009, Mouldaway made representations in accordance with the notice of violation.
4.In its representations Mouldaway stated its belief that it was exempt from the Rules because it did not directly sell products over the phone, but merely booked annual furnace inspections.
5.The Commission finds that because the nine telecommunications promoted a service offered by Mouldaway – that is, furnace and ventilation cleaning – the telecommunications were telemarketing telecommunications as defined in the Rules.3
6.The Commission also finds that the telemarketing telecommunications were initiated by Mouldaway on its own behalf.
7.In light of the above, the Commission finds that Mouldaway initiated the nine telemarketing telecommunications to telecommunications numbers registered on the National DNCL in violation of Part II, section 4 of the Rules.
8.Furthermore, the Commission notes that Mouldaway had not paid all applicable fees to the National DNCL operator at the time the telemarketing telecommunications were made. As such, the Commission finds that each of the nine telemarketing telecommunications were also initiated in violation of Part II, section 6 of the Rules.
9.Mouldaway submitted that a penalty of $4,500 would severely affect the financial state of its business.
10.The Commission has examined the representations of Mouldaway, including the evidence provided with regard to the effect of a penalty of $4,500 on the company. In the circumstances of this case, the Commission considers a penalty of $250 to be appropriate for each of the nine violations of Part II, section 4 of the Rules and for each of the nine violations of Part II, section 6 of the Rules. The Commission therefore imposes AMPs totalling $4,500 on Mouldaway.
11.The Commission hereby notifies Mouldaway of its right to apply to the Commission to review and rescind or vary this decision under section 62 of the Act and to appeal this decision to the Federal Court of Appeal under section 64 of the Act. Any review and vary application under section 62 must be made within 30 days of the date of this decision. An appeal from this decision may be brought in the Federal Court of Appeal with the leave of that Court. Leave to appeal must be applied for within 30 days of the date of this decision or within such further time as a judge of the Court grants in exceptional circumstances.
12.The amount of $4,500 is due by 30 October 2009 and is to be paid in accordance with the instructions contained in the notice of violation. For any amount owing that is not paid by 30 October 2009, interest calculated and compounded monthly at the average bank rate plus three percent will be payable on that amount and will accrue during the period beginning on the due date and ending on the day before the date on which payment is received.
13.If payment of the debt has not been received within 30 days of the date of this decision, the Commission intends to certify the unpaid amount and register the certificate with the Federal Court in order to collect the amount owing.
Secretary General
This document is available in alternative format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
Footnotes:
1.Part II, section 4 of the Rules provides that a telemarketer shall not initiate a telemarketing telecommunication to a consumer’s telecommunications number that is on the National DNCL, unless express consent has been provided by such consumer to be contacted via a telemarketing telecommunication by that telemarketer.
2.Part II, section 6 of the Rules provides that a telemarketer shall not initiate a telemarketing telecommunication on its own behalf unless it is a registered subscriber to the National DNCL and has paid all applicable fees to the National DNCL operator.
3.Part I of the Rules defines “telemarketing” to mean the use of telecommunications facilities to make unsolicited telecommunications for the purpose of solicitation. “Solicitation” is defined, in part, to mean the selling or promoting of a product or service, or the soliciting of money or money’s worth, whether directly or indirectly, and whether on behalf of another person.
Stay tuned.
p2pnet – Do Not Call List violater begs for mercy, September 29, 2009
October, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
October 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
The following is a re-post from previous P2PNet story – apologies if anyone considers these multiple posts to be spam, but on the brighter side, at least it didn’t wake you up when you’re working nights, and didn’t interrupt your family during dinner. It is our opinion that Canadians need to understand how the DNCL mess came about, and the CRTC has put a gag order on traditional broadcast media, so we will continue posting this information in forums like this—–
You are right – the DNCL result is indeed a mockery, but it is possible that you are unaware of just how much of a mockery the CRTC itself is. The entire DNCL process was marred by CRTC suppression of evidence, violations of their own Rules of Procedure, gag orders on the broadcast media (under threat of losing their broadcast licenses), and even hate crimes against Canadians – all committed by the CRTC in their haste to silence public criticism and put corporate interests ahead of the public good. You can read some of the sordid history here: http://home.cogeco.ca/~publicnotice/CanadaDNCL.html complete with audio clip evidence of the CRTC’s suppression of expert testimony from other countries, and the CRTC referring, on the public record, to anyone who objects to telemarketing as a “terrorist”. Disgusting.
The DNCL could have been inexpensive and effective. Instead we are saddled with a wastefully expensive system which indiscriminately distributes our confidential telephone numbers to foreign telemarketing scumbags, and burdens small Canadian businesses with unnecessary costs – all intended to drive them into the arms of the large contract telemarketing interests. In this last respect it is identical to the Gun Registry. It punishes only those who abide by the law. Meanwhile, the telcos hire ex-CRTC Commissioners on a regular basis – there was, in fact, one such hiring during the DNCL proceedings. The telcos that provide CRTC Commissioners with their next carreer then demonstrably receive favoured treatment. Disgusting.
# Reader’s Write Says:
October 1st, 2009 at 10:33 am
Here’s a direct link to evidence of the CRTC coverup: http://home.cogeco.ca/~publicnotice/files/Exhibit2.wma
This was recorded during a working session of the CRTC DNCL Operations Working Group, and is typical of the kind of coverup that is still going on. The CRTC was told on multiple occasions that their downloadable DNCL would be a disaster, but they chose to break the law and cover up the evidence instead of building a simple system that works, using readily available technologies and database techniques. Canada used to be a leader in telecommunications. We are now a worldwide joke because our government bureaucrats are spineless, greedy, self-serving lawbreakers.
October 1st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“…it is possible that you are unaware of just how much of a mockery the CRTC itself is.”
You’re preachin’ to the choir here!
October 1st, 2009 at 4:45 pm
“…it is possible that you are unaware of just how much of a mockery the CRTC itself is.”
We are all aware now.
This is why Jon invited everyone to sign the petition at http://www.dissolvethecrts.ca/
October 1st, 2009 at 7:52 pm
The petition’s been accumulating signatures very slowly since it hit around 4,500 names, but it’s actually managed to reach 8,163 at this point!
I wonder if it’ll get to 10,000, and if so, if anything constructive would actually happen because of that.
October 1st, 2009 at 8:16 pm
It’s been stagnant for a couple of weeks now barely picking up anything at all.
October 1st, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Nothing will come of the petition unless it becomes an election issue. Even then it’s a long shot. The CRTC has made it abundantly clear that broadcast media that is critical of the CRTC will have a hard time when their broadcast license comes up for renewal, so don’t look for any further coverage from CBC. Their wrist has already been slapped severely for letting this get any coverage. There is a revolving door between the regulator and the industry it is supposed to regulate. Add to that the ideological “no regulation is good regulation” position of Harper, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al, and you have a recipe for disaster just like the unregulated banking system in the USA. Then it gets worse when the CRTC and telcos control all the major media outlets. If you think Canada is a country with free speech and a free media then think again.
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
“…broadcast media that is critical of the CRTC will have a hard time when their broadcast license comes up for renewal…”
You could also view that as “more fuel for the fire”.