ARCHIVED - Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-3

Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-3

Ottawa, 23 January 2002

CRTC denies application to review and vary Order CRTC 2000-786

Reference: 8662-D29-01/01

On 15 October 2001, the Commission received a review and vary application by Mr. William C. Dutrizac regarding Order CRTC 2000-786 New area code overlay to be introduced in 604 region, dated 16 August 2000. This order established a method and date for relief of area code 604 in British Columbia. The new area code was introduced using a concentrated overlay of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, Mission and Abbotsford on 3 November 2001. Mr. Dutrizac disputed the correctness of the relief method directed by the Commission in this order and proposed an alternative relief method.

1.

Mr. William C. Dutrizac submited that the Commission's determination contained in Order CRTC 2000-786 was incorrect on the basis that:

• the public consultations were not carried out in a proper manner since notification was inadequate and the topic of the public meeting was not suitably advertised;

• the split via municipalities was not the correct way to study the problem. The correct manner would have been to place all pagers and cell phones under a new area code; and

• the "landmark" to split the area should have been landline and cell/pager numbers.

2.

The Commission notes that considerable effort was made in the proceeding to solicit public input. The Commission issued two public notices that provided the public with the opportunity to participate in the 604 relief process through either the public meetings held in Vancouver or in a written proceeding. In addition, the Commission issued two news releases during this proceeding to further encourage public input and raise public awareness of this issue. Both these public notices and the corresponding news releases received extensive media coverage in British Columbia. Mr. Dutrizac did not provide any evidence or argument to demonstrate why notification of the public consultations was insufficient.

3.

Further, in coming to its determination in Order 2000-786, the Commission studied numerous ways to provide numbering plan area (NPA) relief. Mr. Dutrizac appeared to prefer that a new area code be used exclusively for wireless service (i.e., cellular, personal communications service (PCS) and pager). However, he offered no evidence that the relief method selected by the Commission is incorrect.

4.

In Telecom Public Notice CRTC 98-6, Guidelines for review and vary applications, dated 20 March 1998, the Commission established a test for determining whether or not to exercise its discretion to review and vary its decisions under section 62 of the Telecommunications Act. To meet this test, an applicant must demonstrate that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of the original decision, for example, due to:

• an error in law or in fact;

• a fundamental change in circumstances or facts since the decision;

• a failure to consider a basic principle which had been raised in the original proceeding; or

• a new principle which has arisen as a result of the decision.

5.

The Commission considers that Mr. Dutrizac has not demonstrated that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of the Commission's original decision and therefore denies this application.

Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: www.crtc.gc.ca