ARCHIVED -  Telecom Order CRTC 98-814

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Telecom Order

Ottawa, 18 August 1998
Telecom Order CRTC 98-814
On 12 June 1998, the Commission received an affidavit from MiCall Communications Ltd. (carrying on business as The Call Zone) (MiCall) dated 31 October 1997. It was Bell Canada (Bell) that forwarded this affidavit to the Commission. Through its affidavit, MiCall requested an exemption from contribution charges with respect to Centrex systems used solely to provide local or single-hop services.
File No.: 8626-M25-01/97
1.By letter dated 12 June 1998, MiCall requested: (1) rectification of its missing affidavit (which, as explained below, apparently was not provided to the Commission or to Bell's Regulatory Department); (2) an expeditious disposal of its application due to the long elapsed period of time after 31 October 1997, the date of its affidavit; and (3) an effective date of 31 October 1997 for its exemption from contribution.
2.By letter dated 23 June 1998, Bell stated that it had received a copy of two submissions from MiCall in relation to an application for a contribution exemption with respect to certain Centrex services.
3.Bell stated that the first submission included an affidavit dated 31 October 1997. Bell stated that its records indicate that this affidavit was not provided to the Commission or to Bell's Regulatory Department. However, Bell stated that a copy of the affidavit was provided with other material to its Carrier Services Department on or around 12 December 1997. Bell stated that this copy, which was understood to be a courtesy copy provided to customer contact personnel, was placed in the customer's files.
4.Bell stated that when MiCall recently questioned the status of its exemption request, it became apparent that MiCall had not forwarded the affidavit through the correct channels. Bell stated that at that time, the copy of the affidavit provided to the Carrier Services Department was retrieved and forwarded to the Commission on 12 June 1998.
5.Bell stated that it has reviewed the affidavit and noted that it does not specifically identify the Centrex system(s) which is (are) the subject of the exemption application. In this respect, Bell noted that one Centrex system was installed for MiCall in the 519-651 exchange in January 1998. Bell stated that it assumed that it is this system that is the subject of MiCall's application.
6.Bell stated that the second submission from MiCall is dated 12 June 1998 and was received by Bell on 15 June 1998. Bell stated that in its latest submission, MiCall acknowledges the missing affidavit and requests that the Commission deal with its application "in the shortest possible order and that it reflects its [MiCall's] original filing date of October, 1997."
7.In light of the above, Bell submitted that MiCall may be eligible for a contribution exemption for the system in the 519-651 exchange on the basis that it is used solely to provide single-hop or local services. However, Bell noted that the affidavit provided should clearly identify the system which is the subject of MiCall's application. Accordingly, Bell agreed with an exemption for this system, subject to the provision of a revised affidavit as noted above.
8.By fax dated 2 July 1998, MiCall provided a deficient affidavit. By fax dated 20 July 1998, MiCall provided an acceptable affidavit dated 16 July 1998.
9.The Commission is of the view that MiCall has provided a satisfactory affidavit which meets the evidentiary requirements for approval of single-hop Centrex systems.
10.The Commission is of the view that there are special circumstances with respect to the effective date of the application. The Commission notes that, although MiCall prepared an affidavit on 31 October 1997 to support its application, and submitted it to Bell's Carrier Services Department, MiCall failed to provide it to the Commission. The Commission is of the view that in the circumstances, the effective date should be the date of the original affidavit, 31 October 1997.
11.In light of the foregoing, MiCall's application is approved effective the date of the original affidavit (31 October 1997).
Laura M. Talbot-Allan
Secretary General
This document is available in alternative format upon request.

Date modified: