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.

 

We've won round 1
October 04, 2013
By Celia Sankar
Share this:   

Great news, today. The Ontario Superior Court has certified our lawsuit as a class action. This means Ontario prepaid wireless consumers can collectively sue Bell Mobility over its seizure of prepaid wireless account balances.

Here is the full text of the press release issued by Sotos LLP, one of the lawfirms handling the case on behalf of Ontario prepaid wireless consumers:

$100 Million Class Action Against Bell Mobility Certified -- More than 1 million customers affected

TORONTO, Oct. 4, 2013 /CNW/ - A class action against Bell Mobility Inc. ("Bell") alleging that the expiry dates on its pre-paid wireless services are illegal was certified by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice today.

The lawsuit, which includes more than 1 million class members in Ontario, alleges that Bell systemically breaches its contracts with its pre-paid wireless customers by seizing credit balances. In particular, the lawsuit alleges that pre-paid wireless services payments are "gift cards", as defined by Ontario's Consumer Protection Act, and cannot have an expiry date. The plaintiffs are seeking $100 million in damages from Bell.

The allegations in the lawsuit have not yet been proven in court.

The representative plaintiff, Celia Sankar, lives in Elliot Lake, Ontario, and is founder of the DiversityCanada Foundation, a not-for-profit organization. Ms. Sankar is a Bell pre-paid wireless customer who had her credit balance seized twice, in September 2011 and February 2012. Ms. Sankar will represent anyone in Ontario who purchased or otherwise acquired pre-paid wireless services under the brands Bell Mobility, Virgin Mobile Canada and Solo Mobile since May 4, 2010.

The law firms of Sotos LLP and Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP represent Ms. Sankar and the other members of the class.

"This decision is a victory for the vulnerable consumers who use pre-paid wireless services," said Sankar. "These services are popular with many persons of limited means. It's tremendously important that they have access to the court through a class action proceeding to have their claims fairly tried."

Lead counsel, Louis Sokolov of Sotos LLP, noted that class counsel are currently investigating similar claims against other wireless companies and added that, in the absence of a class action, the claims of individual customers would remain unresolved.

"No one would ever bring their own lawsuit for the $20 or $30 that wireless companies take from their customers when their balances expire," said Sokolov. "That it is why it is so important that consumer cases like this be certified and corporations like Bell be required to answer the allegations."

Co-counsel Christine Davies and Nadine Blum observed this is the first case to consider the "gift card" provisions of Ontario's Consumer Protection Act.

Davies commented: "The gift card law was intended to protect consumers from losing cash equivalents. Class members pre-paid money into their accounts so that they would have funds available to purchase services and products from Bell on an ongoing basis. If successful at trial, this case will ensure that consumers' pre-paid amounts are protected."

 


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