You have a window and you need an argument. The window is statutory; the argument has to be documented, not asserted.
Key takeaways
Two things decide whether a win-back works. The first is timing, and it is partly a legal question: the implied consent that comes from a past commercial relationship does not last indefinitely. The second is whether you can show that the thing that caused them to leave has actually changed — with a document, not a sentence.
Carriers usually get the second part wrong by leading with price. A shipper who left over service does not want a cheaper version of the service they left.
Under Canada’s anti-spam law, consent is implied where the sender has an existing business relationship with the person to whom the message is sent, and that relationship is defined as arising from the purchase or lease of a product, goods, a service, land or an interest or right in land, within the two-year period immediately before the day on which the message was sent.
So the practical question before you write anything is: when did they last actually buy transportation from us? Inside two years, the relationship itself supports the message. Outside it, you need another basis — usually implied consent by conspicuous publication of the address, where the publication carries no refusal statement and the message is relevant to the person’s business, role, functions or duties — or express consent.
Either way the message still has to identify the sender, give contact information the recipient can readily use, and carry an unsubscribe mechanism. Nothing about a former customer relaxes that.
Run the date first
Pull the date of the last completed transaction for every dormant account before you build a win-back list. That single date decides which consent basis you are on, and it is sitting in the accounts-receivable ledger you already keep.
“We have improved” is not an argument. These four are, because a former customer can verify all of them.
Your current safety record. In Ontario, a CVOR Abstract (Level 1) is a one-page summary of a carrier’s record for a two-year period, available to the general public. Sending it is therefore not a disclosure — it is saving them a step, and it signals that you have read it yourself. You can review your own record online at no charge before you decide whether it helps your case.
Current standing on workers’ compensation. A WSIB clearance is a unique number showing a business is registered and up to date with premium payment and reporting, valid for up to 90 days; in British Columbia, a WorkSafeBC clearance letter does the same work.
Your inspection and maintenance position. Ontario’s requirements are concrete enough to point at: an annual safety inspection valid for 12 months on most trucks and trailers over 4,500 kg, and a daily inspection completed up to 24 hours before driving, with a major defect meaning the vehicle cannot be operated until repaired. The national frame is the National Safety Code, 16 standards developed by the member jurisdictions of CCMTA.
Your own performance data. Dwell, transit and on-time, drawn from geofence timestamps, duty-status records and bills of lading. This is the artefact that is genuinely yours, and it is the one that answers “why would this be different now”.
They left over service. Lead with the performance data and a specific commitment on the lane that failed. Offer a trial volume rather than a full tender — asking for less makes yes easier and gives you something to be measured on.
They left over a claim. This is the one carriers avoid and it is usually the most winnable, because most claim disputes are really about terms nobody read. Under British Columbia’s prescribed conditions, for example, notice of loss, damage or delay must be given in writing within 60 days after delivery, or within 9 months after the date of shipment where delivery failed, and the computed amount must not exceed $4.41 per kg ($2 per lb) on the total weight of the shipment unless a higher value is declared on the face of the bill of lading. Which conditions applied at all depends on origin, since the conditions of carriage for an extra-provincial truck undertaking are those of the province in which the transport originates. Say plainly what the terms were, what you would do differently on notification and documentation, and — if it is true — that declared-value carriage is available and priced.
They left over price. The weakest position, because whoever undercut you can do it again. Come back with a structure rather than a number: a defined detention term, a fuel mechanism tied to a published reference agreed in the contract, or a committed-capacity arrangement.
One message. One artefact. One small ask. Then stop.
The message names the person, references the specific lane and the specific reason the relationship ended, and does not pretend the ending did not happen. The artefact is whichever of the four speaks to that reason. The ask is a short conversation or a single trial load, not a tender. And then you leave it — a second and third chase inside a fortnight converts a warm former customer into an unsubscribe.
An Alberta carrier lost a building-products account eighteen months ago after two damaged loads and a claim that was declined. The last invoice was fourteen months ago, so the two-year window is open.
The owner sends one email. It names the two loads. It states what the governing conditions were and why the claim was handled the way it was, without relitigating it. It says what changed — load securement retraining, a photographic record at load and at delivery, and declared-value carriage now offered as a priced option. It attaches the current abstract and clearance. It asks for two loads, not the lane.
They take one. The photographic record is what actually wins the second one, because it removes the argument the relationship died over.
Identifying dormant accounts and, critically, the date of the last completed transaction — the fact that decides the consent basis. Assembling the evidence pack with current documents. Drafting a message that references the actual history rather than a template. Suppressing anyone who has ever unsubscribed.
It should not decide who to approach, what to concede, or how to characterise a past claim. Those are commercial and sometimes legal judgements, and they need a person’s name on them.
Not on the strength of the old relationship. The existing-business-relationship route depends on a purchase or lease within the two-year period immediately before the message. You would need conspicuous publication or express consent, on the same footing as a cold prospect.
Practically, yes — your history is with an organisation but your relationship was with a person, and the new one has no reason to care. Treat it as a fresh approach and check your consent basis rather than assuming it carries over. Note that the statute does address one specific case: where the business is sold, the purchaser is considered to have the existing business relationship in respect of that business.
Only if price was the reason, and even then prefer structure to a number. A discount to fix a service problem buys one load and confirms their view that you knew you were expensive.
A 30-minute call is enough to tell you whether AI pays for itself in your back office.
