OTTAWA – The CRTC cracked down on four more telemarketers Tuesday, levying fines of more than $45,000.
Les Fenêtres et Portes Deluxe de Montréal Inc., based in Quebec, was charged a $1,000 penalty for each of its 10 violations of the country’s national do not call list (DNCL) rules.
The Commission found that the company made telemarketing calls to consumers whose telecommunications numbers were registered on the DNCL, and initiated these telemarketing telecommunications without being a registered subscriber of the National DNCL and having paid all applicable fees to the National DNCL operator, in violation of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules.
Concord, ON-based Canadian Choice Home Improvements Inc. was also charged $1,000 for each of its violations.
Eight calls were made to consumers whose telecommunications numbers were registered on the DNCL, and two of these telecommunications used a version of the National DNCL obtained from the National DNCL operator more than 31 days before the date of the telecommunications, in violation of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules, reads that decision.
The Commission also fined an Ontario numbered company $9,000 for initiating, on behalf of Aloplast Duke Windows and Doors Inc., telemarketing telecommunications to consumers whose telecommunications numbers were registered on the DNCL, and for doing so while this client (1) was not registered with the National DNCL operator, (2) had not provided information to the National DNCL operator, (3) was not a registered subscriber of the National DNCL, and (4) had not paid all applicable fees to the National DNCL operator.
In a related decision, the CRTC also fined Aloplast Duke Windows and Doors Inc. $18,000 for retaining a telemarketer to make calls on its behalf to consumers whose telecommunications numbers were registered on the DNCL, and for doing so when it was not registered with the National DNCL operator, had not provided information to the National DNCL operator, was not a registered subscriber of the National DNCL, and had not paid all applicable fees to the National DNCL operator, in violation of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules.
