ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8678-C12-11/01 - Public Notice CRTC 2001-37- Price cap review and related issues - AT&T Canada request for disclosure

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Our file: 8678-C12-11/01 and 8624-B20-01/00

Ottawa, 26 October 2001

To: Interested Parties

Re: Public Notice CRTC 2001-37 - Price cap review and related issues - AT&T Canada request for disclosure

This letter deals with a request by AT&T Canada Corp. and AT&T Canada Telecom Services Company (collectively, AT&T Canada), by letter dated 19 October 2001, for disclosure of information filed under claim of confidence by TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS) in TELUS Exhibit #19 provided during the above-noted proceeding.

TELUS provided a reply to this request by letter dated 22 October 2001.

Requests for disclosure of information for which confidentiality has been claimed are assessed in light of sections 38 and 39 of the Telecommunications Act and section 19 of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules). In the case of each request, the public interest in disclosure is weighed against the specific direct harm, if any, likely to result from disclosure. In doing so, a number of factors are taken into account, including the following.

The degree of competition that exists in a particular market is an important consideration in assessing requests for disclosure. All things being equal, the greater the degree of competition in a particular market, the greater the specific harm that could be expected to result from disclosure.

Another factor in assessing the extent of harm is the expected usefulness of the information at issue to parties in furthering their competitive position. In this regard, an important consideration is the degree to which the information at issue is disaggregated. Generally speaking, the more aggregated the information, the less the likelihood that harm will flow from its disclosure.

The expectation that specific direct harm might result from disclosure is not, by itself, sufficient to justify maintaining a claim of confidentiality. In certain circumstances, substantial harm from disclosure may still be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure.

Finally, the treatment of confidentiality requests should not be taken as an indication of the manner in which such matters would be dealt with in the future, in different circumstances.

Having regard to the considerations set out above, in the case of the specific request dealt with in this letter, no disclosure will be required.

Yours sincerely,

Shirley Soehn
Executive Director, Telecommunications

c.c.: Valerie Plaskacz, CRTC, (819) 997-4589

Date modified: