Telus’ cancellation fee is making headlines once again.
Essentially, B.C.’s consumer watchdog is in a legal battle with the telecom giant that has reached the province’s Supreme Court, after accusing the company of stonewalling an inspector trying to determine whether a mistaken $1,400 cancellation fee was part of a bigger issue.
According to documents obtained by CBC News, Consumer Protection BC (CPBC) claimed that Telus provided what was described as “misleading information” in response to a request for copies of complaints. Telus initially told the inspector such records don’t exist, before later admitting there are “far too many records to review.”
Telus versus Consumer Protection BC
This all started when Consumer Protection BC (CPBC) launched an investigation into the telecom giant back in 2025 over a customer who claimed Telus failed to end a contract after the customer cancelled. The customer later received emails that included both the cancellation notice and a cancellation fee of $1,435.65.
After inspector Jason McColl asked for an explanation of why the fee was incurred, Telus insisted that the issue was an isolated incident and cancelled the fee, blaming “human error or misunderstanding by an agent” for why it continued charging for the cancelled service.
However, McColl used this complaint to open a new inspection. As part of this, McColl issued an order requiring Telus to disclose copies of all records relating to consumer requests to cancel contracts because they did not meet the terms of the consumer protection legislation, alongside asking for “penalty payments demanded and/or collected… from a consumer seeking to cancel a contract.”
In response, Telus lawyer Julia Won wrote: “We do not have records that respond to your request.”
Won went on to say that Telus doesn’t penalize consumers, noting that Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) regulations only permit cancellation fees in specific circumstances.
According to the exchanges, McColl provided details of a customer complaint that met the requirements of the inspection order and demanded to know why the complaint hadn’t been found through the company’s own searches. Won then accused McColl of testing Telus, saying that the company had “deep concerns about the nature of these inquiries.”
Following this exchange, an external lawyer for Telus wrote an email to McColl and blamed technical issues related to “the capacity and scope for electronic searches” as the cause for the lack of record and that there are “far too many records to review manually.”
McColl’s final report to the director of CPBC claimed that the lawyer’s email directly contradicted the company’s “earlier categorical representations that no such responsive records existed.”
The resolution
CPBC issued a decision in June, finding that Telus had supplied misleading information and failed to produce records. The ruling included $19,000 in fines, and $22,000 to cover the costs of McColl’s inspection.
The company was also ordered to “develop, revise, and implement written policies and procedures governing its response to inspection orders and inquiries” from the regulator.
Now, Telus is challenging this ruling in the Supreme Court and accusing CPBC of making what the CBC describes as unlawful and unreasonably high demands for information.
Source: CBC News
MobileSyrup may earn a commission from purchases made via our links, which helps fund the journalism we provide free on our website. These links do not influence our editorial content. Support us here.
