ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8690-S9-200704900
This page has been archived on the Web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.
LetterOttawa, 27 April 2007 File No.: 8690-S9-200704900 BY E-MAIL
Mr. Michael R. McAllister mrm@murdymcallister.com Dear Mr. McAllister: Re: Part VII Application by Shaw Cablesystems Limited seeking access to highways and other public places within the jurisdiction of the District of Maple Ridge By letter dated 25 April 2007, the District of Maple Ridge (the District) requested that S haw Cablesystems Limited's (Shaw) application dated 30 March 2007 be adjourned generally or, alternatively to 1 October 2007, and that Shaw be directed to return to negotiations with the District without requiring the District to execute an interim access agreement or memorandum of understanding. By letter dated 26 April 2007 , Shaw objected to this request. On 17 April 2007 , the District had previously requested that Shaw's application be adjourned generally to allow parties to return to the negotiating table, or in the alternative the District be given an extension in time to file its Answer. In response to the request, Commission staff, by letter dated 18 April 2007 , extended the time for Answer and Reply to April 30 and 10 May 2007 , respectively. This extension is consistent with the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure . The Commission staff letter also stated that if the parties should enter into negotiations, the Commission would be prepared to consider a request by both parties to adjourn the application. In light of all of the above, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to further extend the process. Therefore, the District is still required to file its Answer to Shaw's application by 30 April 2007 and Shaw is to file its Reply by 10 May 2007 . Failure to provide all requested information may result in an adverse inference by the Commission in this proceeding. Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, and not merely sent, by that date. Yours sincerely, 'Original signed by L. Fancy'
Lynne Fancy
cc: J. Mullaney, CRTC (819) 953-5255 |
- Date modified: