Would you like a Counter Offer with that?


Cover Letter


Joe D’Angelo

Lang Michener, LLP

BCE Place, 181 Bay Street, Suite 2500

Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2T7



Dear Mr. D’Angelo,                                                                                 October 12, 2006


Thank you for the offer of settlement from your client, Rogers Wireless Inc. I have attached Terms of Settlement that constitute a counter-offer. If your client is in agreement with the terms of the counter-offer, then I propose that we proceed in the following manner:


Upon receipt from you of the documents specified in and delivered according to the attached Minutes of Settlement, I will sign, witness, and date the Terms of Settlement and make three copies of them.

The person who delivers the documents to me should be instructed to wait for two signed copies to return to your office and you will undertake to distribute these to both Defendants.


I will send a copy of the Terms of Settlement with the attached Agreed Statement of Facts to Toronto Small Claims Court and ask for the case to be withdrawn.


If Rogers does not intend to use the motion date that I have been told it secured for October 26 at 12 PM, I would appreciate being so informed as soon as possible.


Yours amicably,



Susan G. Drummond


Minutes of Settlement


For the case of Susan G. Drummond v. Rogers Wireless Inc. (SC-05-24969-00) (the “Action”)

The parties hereby agree to settle this matter as follows:

1. The parties agree that the Action will be settled in consideration of payment to the Plaintiff of the total sum of $5,301.00 as follows: i) Rogers Wireless Inc will certify a cheque for $301.00 made payable to Susan G. Drummond dated no later than October 19, 2006; ii) Rogers Wireless Inc will certify a cheque made payable to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre dated no later than October 19, 2006.

2. The contract for wireless services between Susan G. Drummond and Rogers Wireless Inc will terminate, and shall for all purposes be deemed to have terminated, effective on October 14, 2006. Rogers Wireless Inc hereby waives payment, and shall forgo collection, of all amounts owing as an “Early Cancellation Fee” for the termination of that contract (account number 4-6020-6717). Rogers Wireless Inc shall forgo all notification period requirements for contract cancellation.

3. The President of Rogers Wireless Inc shall sign and date the attached “Agreed Statement of Facts”.

4. Rogers Wireless Inc will serve the following documents personally on the Plaintiff on October 19, 2006 between 10 AM and 12 PM at her address for service herein:


i) The certified cheques mentioned in paragraph 1;

ii) Form 14D signed, witnessed, and dated by both Defendants with these Minutes of Settlement and the signed Agreed Statement of Facts attached.

This offer expires on October 27, 2006


Agreed Statement of Facts

in Susan G. Drummond v. Rogers Wireless Inc. (SC-05-24969-00) (the “Action”)

1. The payment to the Plaintiff by Rogers Group of Companies of $5,309.60 by cheque no. 6100000510 on January 25, 2006 was not an Offer of Settlement for the Action but a goodwill gesture and a payment for damages outside of the scope of the Action’s claim; the certification of that cheque on February 9, 2006 by the Plaintiff was not an acceptance of a settlement offer; and the foregoing transactions do not constitute a Settlement Agreement.

2. Ted Rogers, President and CEO of Rogers Communications Inc (the parent corporation of Rogers Wireless Inc), has publicly – and with sound reason consistent with the law – acknowledged that the charges incurred on the Plaintiff’s cell phone between July 26-August 16, 2005, made without authorization by someone other than and unknown to the wireless account holder, were wrongfully attributed by Rogers Wireless Inc to the Plaintiff.

3. The Plaintiff had fully complied with the mechanism the corporation provides for registering a dispute over charges when she disputed them with the Customer Service Department of Rogers Wireless Inc.

4. The resolution of formal consumer disputes with the corporation (i.e. those disputes which comply with the mechanism described in paragraph 3) ultimately requires judicial resolution should all other attempts to resolve the dispute prove unsuccessful; therefore the corporation was in error when it sent the disputed charges to Rogers’ Accounts Receivable Department for collection; and in error when it sent reports to the credit bureaus indicating that the Plaintiff’s account was overdue when it was, in fact, and in accordance with the law, in dispute; and in error when it charged a late penalty on charges that were formally in dispute.




President, Rogers Wireless Inc_________________________________________

                                                                      (Please print)



Signature____________________________________ Date: _________________