CRTC Rejects Bell, Rogers, Telus Attempt to Stall Switching Fee Probe

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has dismissed several procedural demands made by Bell, Rogers and Telus.

The telecoms attempted to change the process of a major case examining whether setup and device charges violate national rules designed to lower switching costs for consumers.

The regulator launched the investigation after finding that newly added fees appear to conflict with Telecom Regulatory Policy 2026-43. That decision from earlier this year modified both the Wireless Code and the Internet Code to allow Canadians to change or cancel telecom services without paying penalty-like fees.

The incumbent telcos are facing scrutiny over specific customer charges, which came to life after the CRTC banned junk fees such as the dreaded $80 connection fee.

Bell debuted a $40 device-handling fee for customers buying phones on a plan. Telus added a $15 SIM card or eSIM charge. Rogers introduced three separate costs, which the CRTC took aim at, including a $40 device setup charge, a $25 shipping charge and a SIM fee.

CRTC staff warned all three companies prior to the proceeding that those fees appear to violate the ban on switching barriers, according to its August 14 decision.

Before the probe began, staff “noted that charging fees for device handling, device setup, or the purchase of a SIM card does not appear to fall within the exemption for optional services and products set out” in its policy.

Telus led the legal pushback on July 17 by asking the regulator to split the proceeding into two parts and remove specific CRTC staff from working on the file. Telus claimed staff were bias, saying they had already reached conclusions through early compliance letters and media interviews. Magically, Bell and Rogers formally supported the Telus request.

The CRTC rejected the bias arguments after applying standard legal tests for impartiality. The regulator noted that compliance letters basically just informed carriers to potential issues, while media comments made clear that final findings would be made by appointed decision-makers.

“Commission staff members lack the statutory authority to make binding decisions on matters before the Commission,” the CRTC stated, adding that while staff collect evidence and advise, “only Commission members can make determinations of fact and law, including findings of non-compliance and the imposition of a remedy.”

The regulator also turned down a Telus request to divvy up the case into separate stages for establishing guilt and determining penalties. Telus argued that addressing both at the same time risked prejudging the case, but the CRTC said that all parties can reply to both issues at once.

Addressing claims that the proceeding lacked clarity, the regulator confirmed “the case to be met has been clearly articulated, and the Companies have been provided sufficient notice.”

Consumer advocacy groups also saw requests denied by the CRTC. The Forum for Research and Policy in Communications and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre requested a two-day oral hearing to build a thorough public record. The CRTC sided with Bell and Telus in keeping the review on paper, noting the case “involves a single inquiry regarding the interpretation and compliance with one statutory provision of the Act.”

The Forum for Research and Policy in Communications (FRPC) also questioned why carriers got the final word in written submissions rather than non-profit consumer groups. The CRTC explained that “a greater degree of procedural fairness is owed to the Companies given the nature of the Proceeding” because the providers face potential financial penalties.

Rogers, Telus and Bell face possible fines alongside possible compliance orders by the CRTC. Previous deadlines suspended in late July have been rescheduled, with initial intervention submissions due August 31, 2026, followed by final reply filings in September.

On August 14, the CRTC also announced that it disagreed with Bell’s phone locking policy, but then said the rest of the industry could also sell locked phones too temporarily, but only for two days.

What do you think about the CRTC’s decision making so far regarding these junk fees? Seems like a whole lot of busy work and not a lot of tough decision making.