Bell has been ordered by a Quebec Court judge to pay a Montreal customer $1,000 after determining the he experienced a “Kafkaesque” ordeal when trying to cancel his satellite TV plan.
Judge Luc Huppé criticized Bell’s customer service process that was endured by Gilles Tessier in spring 2019, calling it unnecessarily burdensome.
“Requiring a customer to endure a 75-minute telephone conversation in order to resolve a problem that, on the surface, seems relatively simple creates undue inconvenience,” Huppé said in his ruling, reports the Montreal Gazette.
In May 2019, Tessier, a long-time customer, contacted Bell to cancel his subscription. Despite being told that his service would end the following day, Tessier discovered in June that his credit card had been charged until mid-July.
On July 2, Tessier called Bell again and was subjected to what the judge described as “Kafkaesque” service, referring to writer Franz Kafka and his stories where characters face strange, confusing and impossible puzzles and situations.
Over an hour, he was transferred multiple times and spoke with six different employees. Each transfer required Tessier to repeat his personal information and the reason for his call.
At one point, he was transferred to the new connections department instead of cancellations, further compounding his frustration. Eventually, an employee confirmed that his initial cancellation request had been recorded but not executed. His credit card was subsequently reimbursed.
After experiencing this situation, Tessier sued Bell Canada in 2022, seeking $8,000 in damages. Judge Huppé acknowledged the inadequacies in Bell’s customer service but did not question the good faith of the individual employees. He ruled that Tessier’s problem resulted from a systemic issue, not deliberate neglect.
“The employees clearly applied a protocol which they are not free to deviate from but which has a cumulative effect of dehumanizing the service Bell provides,” Huppé wrote. He dismissed Tessier’s request for $8,000 but awarded him $1,000 from Bell for the inconvenience.
The Civil Code of Quebec requires service providers to let customers cancel contracts without “an undue burden on them.”
Tessier’s experience in dealing with a Big 3 telecom is not uncommon, as we’ve seen many complaints to the CCTS. But for Tessier to assert his rights under Quebec law and escalate to court, good on him for knowing how he was supposed to be treated.
Want to see more of our stories on Google?
P.S. Want to keep this site truly independent? Support us by buying us a beer, treating us to a coffee, or shopping through Amazon here. Links in this post are affiliate links, so we earn a tiny commission at no charge to you. Thanks for supporting independent Canadian media!
Bell is the worst company among all telecom companies. Never do they give credit or discount. Terrible customer service, nor they value their customers. Even you talk to escalations about canceling the service and switch to another carrier, they won't even budge. Useless and totally gone case fellas. Always waste of time when calling customer service. It usually runs on Corporate / Business consumers.
All corporations are only here to please the share holders.
Doesn’t matter if it’s Bell, Telus or Roger’s.
we have all had bad experiences with corporations and will continue having them. 😩
I should also sue Bell and Rogers