logo FOLLOW CELIA
A Campaign for Fair Treatment for Bell Prepaid Wireless Customers
Together we can be united and strong
Sign
THE PETITION
Why this campaign?
Bell presents two different expiry dates to the customer. Which is the valid expiry date?
Bell claims the customer's unused balances as forfeited even before the expiry day is over.
Because of Bell's practices, prepaid wireless customers have lost untold millions of dollars.
Prepaid wireless customers include seniors, youth, minimum-wage workers and the unemployed.
These are vulnerable consumers who can least afford to lose their funds or their mobile service.
STAY IN THE LOOP
Subscribe to receive news and updates
By providing your name and email, you are agreeing to be contacted concerning this consumer education and mobilisation campaign. Your information with not be shared with any third party and you will not be contacted by any third party, unless you so authorise.

 

 

Appeal court decision not in our favour

April 04, 2016
By Celia Sankar

Share this:   

Appeal of Bell Mobility Class Action

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled today that Bell Mobility was entitled to seize funds in its customers’ prepaid wireless accounts, and therefore is not required to refund those sums.

As the lead plaintiff representing over one million Ontario consumers who are seeking $200 million in damages in this class action, I must say this is a huge disappointment for consumers.

The lawsuit, which was started in May, 2012, focused on the cash that consumers deposit into prepaid accounts with Bell in order to purchase wireless services from Bell Mobility, Virgin Mobile Canada and Solo Mobile.

It was prompted by Bell’s action of displaying messages on consumers’ phones and online accounts advising consumers to add more funds to the accounts by a so-called expiry date in order to preserve the account balances, and then seizing the balances before the end of the designated expiry date.

The appeal was heard by a three-member panel, which included Ontario Chief Justice George Strathy, Justice Harry S. LaForme, and Justice Grant Huscroft.

Check back, soon, for a more detailed analysis of the decision.

In the meantime, the court’s ruling may be viewed here.




Image 01 Image 02 Image 03 Image 04 Image 05 Image 06 Image 07 Image 08 Image 09 Image 10 Image 11