ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8678-C12-200402313
This page has been archived on the Web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-C12-200402313 Ottawa, 18 May 2005 To: Parties to Review and disposition of deferral accounts for the second price cap period , Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-1, 24 March 2004 (Public Notice 2004-1) Dear Sir/Madam: Re: Requests for further responses to interrogatories and for disclosure of information filed This letter deals with requests for further responses to interrogatories and for disclosure of information for which Aliant Telecom inc. (Aliant Telecom) has claimed confidentiality in the above-noted proceeding. This letter reflects the Commission's objective of ensuring that all parties have the benefit of the maximum amount of information placed on the public record at the earliest appropriate stage, in order to facilitate a more efficient and effective proceeding. Part I - Requests for Disclosure 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 evaluating a request, an assessment is made as to whether there is any specific direct harm likely to result from disclosure of the information in question. Further, in order to justify a claim of confidence, any such harm must be sufficient as to outweigh the public interest in disclosure. In making this evaluation, a number of factors are taken into consideration, 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 requests for disclosure is the expected usefulness of the information at issue to parties in furthering their competitive positions. 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 greater the likelihood that little harm will flow from its disclosure. The expectation that specific direct harm might result from disclosure is not, by itself, sufficient to justify a claim of confidentiality. In certain circumstances, substantial harm from disclosure may still be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the material. 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, under different circumstances. Part II - Requests for Further Responses With regard to requests for further responses, the requirements of subsection 18(2) of the Rules apply. The general principles enunciated by the Commission in past proceedings are set below. The major consideration is the relevance of the information requested to the matter at issue. The availability of the information requested is also a factor, which is balanced against the relevance of the information. If the provision of the information sought would require an effort disproportionate to the probative value of the information itself, further responses will not be required. Another factor considered is the extent to which an answer is responsive to the interrogatory as originally asked. Generally, parties are not required to provide further responses to requests for further information from a party that did not ask the original interrogatory. The Commission received requests for disclosure or for further responses to interrogatories from the Canadian Association of the Deaf (CAD) on 22 April 2005. Aliant Telecom filed responses to these requests on 27 April 2005 . Commission staff notes that CAD issued new interrogatories and under the process set out in Public Notice 2004-1, there is no provision for supplemental interrogatory requests by interveners. Having regard to all of the above considerations, there is no further response required by Aliant Telecom. Yours sincerely,
Chris Seidl
c.c. Parties to PN 2004-1 |
- Date modified: