DNCL Violator Responds to CRTC Fine reports on the response from Rob Sugar to a do-not-call list violation fine.


  1. you made a typo
    I think you made a mistake in the URL in this topic. The URL is:
    and not


  2. Of course they don’t maintain a separate
    fax list. What a dumb idea.

    I have two points with respect to the story…

    So let’s see. I have a fax machine attached to my landline at home. This idiot wants me to register it as a voice line AND a fax number? What are the odds that I am willing to accept fax telemarketing (and these butt-holes, in my experience, call at about 2 am when I am asleep) while not accepting voice telemarketing? The only lines I have ever seen which are fax-only are business fax lines. This bozo is a “weight loss coach”. His target audience is the consumer, not businesses.

    The second is with the article itself. Can the author suggest an alternative to “telephone marketeers are able to actually buy copies of the list for a nominal fee”. Before someone brings it up, the idea of a database query is no better, for a couple of reasons.

    First of all, it requires that the database be accessable at all times. Not only does the server need to be up, but so does the connections to it, as well as the DNS servers needed to find it. It would have to be illegal to contact any number if you haven’t vetted it through the DNCL first.

    The second reason is simply that there is nothing that can prevent the telemarketer, in the case of a query mechanism, from storing the numbers retrieved for offline use. It really doesn’t matter if it is illegal to do so.

    I feel much better now.

  3. Interesting says:

    The 4 new ones + Rob “the dog ate it” Sugar
    I was reading about the 4 new Do Not Call List predators released this week over here:

    In the rulings there by the CRTC, they say the following in relation to 3 out of the 4 DNSL abusers:

    “7. The Commission finds that telemarketing telecommunications were made on behalf of (insert company here)”

    Then the CRTC fined the companies.

    So even if Rob Sugar didn’t send the Faxes himself, the CRTC would have ruled against him anyhow. It appears that the company (or person) is on the hook even if they use another firm to do their dirty-deeds.

    So either way Rob Sugar is guilty (even if his next door neighbour signed for his personal mail then lost it, or the dog ate it).

    What is also interesting is that in the 4 new tele-abuse cases listed, the person, “Ilya Nikitine”, who represents 3 of the 4 abusers (is Ilya Nikitine with a firm who phoned/faxed people? A lawyer just happening to defend 3 of the 4?) uses the charter to say his clients “right to freedom of expression” has been violated.

    Now I’m all for right to freedom of expression, but I don’t think right to freedom of expression was meant for tele-abusers to call people up at all times of the day when people requested that they not be called all times of the day.

    Should we all call this Ilya Nikitine person and bug him and says this is our right to freedom of expression? Basically this is what s/he is saying.

  4. @Rob Sugar
    He should have familiarized himself with section 72.02 of the act:

    72.02 A person is liable for a violation that is committed by an employee, or an agent or mandatary, of the person acting in the course of the employee’s employment or the scope of the agent’s or mandatary’s authority, whether or not the employee, agent or mandatary who actually committed the violation is identified or proceeded against in accordance with this Act.