Window Brothers operator fined $10,000 for unsolicited-fax violations

The federal telecommunications regulator has imposed a $10,000 penalty on the operator of Window Brothers for unsolicited-fax violations, rejecting a proposed calculation of $55,356 while finding that a meaningful financial consequence was still needed to secure compliance.

In Compliance and Enforcement Decision CRTC 2026-261, issued October 7, 2026, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission held Andrei Crivoseia, doing business as Window Brothers, liable for 202 violations of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules.

The violations were deemed committed because Crivoseia neither paid the proposed penalty nor made representations in accordance with the notice of violation. The decision is an administrative enforcement ruling against an individual carrying on business, not a criminal conviction or a damages award to fax recipients.

Complaints led to nine categories of violations

The Commission received 37 complaints during the period covered by the notice. The notice concerned conduct between May 30, 2023, and October 11, 2024, including faxes to numbers on the National Do Not Call List without express consent, failures to register or subscribe as required, and problems with internal do-not-call practices.

Other violations involved missing fax identification information, inadequate contact arrangements, transmissions outside permitted hours, and failure to display an originating or alternative telephone number. The 202 figure counts violations of different rules; it is not a finding that there were 202 complainants or 202 separate fax transmissions.

The November 6, 2025 notice proposed $250 for each violation, totalling $50,500, plus $4,856 representing twice the $2,428 in subscription fees that had not been paid.

Unpaid fees mattered, but not as a separate recovery charge

The Commission rejected that additional fee-based component. An administrative monetary penalty is intended to promote compliance, not recover subscription revenue for the operator of the National Do Not Call List. Penalties are payable to the Receiver General for Canada, rather than to that operator.

That did not make the financial benefit of avoiding fees irrelevant. The Commission said a penalty should be more than a cost of doing business and should exceed the $2,428 benefit. It considered that advantage as part of deterrence, rather than adding a separate revenue-recovery amount.

The Commission also weighed factors pointing in different directions. It regarded the violations as serious: unwanted faxes were compounded by failures involving registration, identifying information, contact arrangements and do-not-call obligations. But the number and frequency of violations—about 12 per month over roughly 17 months—were relatively low and supported reducing the proposed amount.

Past enforcement involving an associated business pointed the other way. Crivoseia was the sole director of Blue Dream HT Ltd., which had received notices of violation in 2015 and 2018. The Commission found those steps had not secured compliance with the telemarketing rules. It also cited correspondence indicating an intention to continue sending unsolicited faxes and assessed the risk of future violations as very high.

Business scale helped bring the penalty down

Crivoseia had not supplied financial records despite repeated requests. The Commission therefore gave limited weight to unsupported claims about financial hardship and declining business, including reported monthly business revenue of $1,000 to $2,000.

Even so, it considered the scale of the operation and the effect of imposing a penalty on an individual rather than a corporation. It noted that $50,500 would represent roughly two to four years of revenue at the reported level and found the proposed amount disproportionate.

Taking the factors together, the Commission concluded that $10,000 would be significant enough to promote compliance without being punitive. The reduction did not erase any of the 202 deemed violations.

The decision sets November 6, 2026 as the payment deadline, with interest if the penalty is not paid by then. It also warns that future violations could attract higher penalties. The ruling illustrates the distinction between establishing regulatory violations and choosing a proportionate sanction: serious conduct and a high risk of repetition did not justify every component of the proposed calculation.