OTTAWA — After repeated requests for information have been ignored for two years by an air duct cleaning company alleged to have violated the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules, the CRTC announced Wednesday it has initiated a show cause proceeding against Topline Air Duct Cleaning Inc.
According to the CRTC’s Compliance and Enforcement Notice of Consultation CRTC 2017-281, Topline Air Duct Cleaning and its owner and president, Naveed Raza, failed to respond to a request for information (RFI) letter sent by the Commission on July 31, 2015. The RFI letter requested confirmation from Topline that it was registered with the National Do Not Call List (DNCL) operator and that it had a subscription to the National DNCL. In addition, the letter requested a list of telecommunications numbers that were used, displayed or provided as callback numbers by Topline since 2015, as well as a list of all of its clients since March 25, 2015.
When Topline did not respond to the letter, having been given a response due date of August 13, 2015, two CRTC enforcement officers visited the Topline owner’s residence in Scarborough, Ont., on November 26, 2015, in an effort to determine why there had been no response by Raza. Although he offered no explanation for not responding to the RFI letter, Raza claimed his company no longer relied upon telemarketing to generate business, the CRTC said.
Raza was given a deadline extension to respond to the RFI letter by January 15, 2016, but he failed to respond again to the Commission’s letter. Enforcement officers conducted a follow-up inquiry by emailing Raza on March 8, 2016, but no response was received, the CRTC said.
On March 15, 2017, the CRTC issued another letter, in which Topline and Raza were formally put on notice that their failure to respond to the RFI letter by April 3, 2017, could lead the Commission to conclude they have “resisted or willfully obstructed an inspector in carrying out his or her duties”, in contravention of paragraph 71(10)(a) of the Telecommunications Act. Again, Topline and Raza failed to respond to the Commission’s letter, the CRTC said.
As a result, the Commission is directing Topline and its owner separately to show cause
- why the Commission should not find that Topline and Raza have each committed a violation under paragraph 71(10)(a) of the Telecommunications Act; and
- why, if Topline and Raza are found to have committed this violation, (i) an administrative monetary penalty (AMP) of $15,000 should not be imposed against Topline, and (ii) an AMP of $10,000 should not be imposed against Raza.
The CRTC further directs Topline and Raza to file any evidence that supports their respective positions as interventions to the Commission by September 8, 2017. Interested parties who wish to become parties to this proceeding must file an intervention with the Commission regarding these matters, also by September 8, 2017.
The rules of procedure regarding how to file interventions with the Commission are included in the CRTC’s compliance and enforcement notice of consultation, which can be accessed here.
