ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8622-S9-200800111

Letter

Ottawa, 20 February 2008

File No.: 8622-S9-200800111

By email

Mr. Peter Webb
Concord Pacific Group Inc.
9th Floor 1095 W. Pender St.
Vancouver, British Columbia
V6E 2M6
Peter.webb@concordpacific.com

Mr. Jean Brazeau
Shaw Communications Inc.
2055 Flavelle Blvd.
Mississauga, Ontario
L5K 1Z8
jean.brazeau@sjrb.ca

Re:  Part VII Application by Shaw Communications Inc. seeking acceses to Concord Pacific Group Inc.'s Coopers Quay buildings

Concord Pacific Group Inc. (Concord) is requested to respond to the following additional interrogatories as set out in Attachment 1 by 26 February 2008.

Upon receiving responses to the attached interrogatories, the Commission will notify the person(s), if any, from whom consent must be obtained prior to granting Shaw access to the buildings in question, that in disposing of this application, the Commission will determine the issue as to whether an order should be made directing such person to permit Shaw to construct and/or install its telecommunications facilities in the buildings in question, subject to such conditions as the Commission determines to be just and expedient. The person(s) will be given an opportunity to respond by 5 March 2008. Shaw will have an opportunity to file, by 10 March 2008, a reply solely with respect to any such submission.

Parties are to file their submissions with the Commission and to serve a copy of each submission on the other parties to the proceeding by the dates set out above. 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.

Commission staff notes that parties are encouraged to negotiate access during the time that this application is being processed by the Commission.  The parties are to advise Commission staff by 10 March 2008 as to the status of such negotiations and specifically:

1.      Whether the parties continue to be in negotiation, and if not, why not?

2.      Concord is to provide a list of the specific provisions in Shaw's proposed access agreement to which Concord objects.

3.      Indicate whether Shaw has been denied access to the buildings in question that Shaw may require in order to develop its installation plans.

4.      Indicate whether Shaw has provided any required installation plans to Concord.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed

Mario Bertrand
A/Director, Competition Implementation and Technology
Telecommunications

cc: janet.yee@concordpacific.com 
     donna.robertson@novusnow.ca 
     regulatory.affairs@telus.com
     ada.san@concordpacific.com 
     szolf@heenan.ca       

Attach.

ATTACHMENT 1

Questions for Concord Pacific Group Inc. (Concord)

In its 21 January 2008 response to Commission interrogatories as to which entity has the legal authority to negotiate terms of access by Shaw into the buildings in question, Concord identified Centreville Construction Ltd. (Centreville) in relation to access to 3 buildings, and itself in relation to access to Coopers Lookout.  In its 6 February 2008 submission Concord(CRTC)23Jan08(General), Concord indicated that consultations with the requisite building owners would be necessary in respect of any business proposals that Shaw might bring forward.

Clarification is required to identify the specific entity possessing the legal authority to negotiate (i.e. 'to arrange for, achieve, obtain, or bring about something by negotiation') the terms of access by Shaw into the buildings in question.  Responses must relate to each of the following three buildings: Coopers Lookout, Mariner and Flagship.

1. a) Confirm that Concord has the authority to discuss with Shaw proposals for access to Coopers Lookout.  If not, identify the entity that has such authority.  Assuming Concord does have such authority, identify the document, and the specific provision, pursuant to which Concord has such authority.  Provide a copy of the document if it has not already been provided to the Commission.

b) Does Concord have the authority to discuss with Shaw proposals for access to the Mariner and Flagship buildings?  If it has such authority, identify the document, and the specific provision, pursuant to which Concord has such authority.  Provide a copy of the document if it has not already been provided to the Commission.

c) Confirm that Centreville Construction Ltd. has the authority to discuss with Shaw proposals for access to the Mariner and Flagship buildings (and if not, identify the person with such authority).  Identify the document, and the specific provision, pursuant to which Centreville Construction Ltd (or any other entity identified) has such authority.  Provide a copy of such agreement if it has not already been provided to the Commission.

d) For each of the 3 buildings named above, is consent by the owner(s) required prior to concluding a binding access agreement with Shaw.  If such consent is required pursuant to the agreement(s) identified above, or any other agreement, identify the agreement and the specific provision pursuant to which such consent is required.  Provide a copy of such agreement if it has not already been provided to the Commission.

e) For each of the 3 buildings named above, if consent by the building owner(s) (whether beneficial or legal) is required prior to concluding a binding access agreement with Shaw, identify the owner(s) from whom such consent is required and the nature of the owner's interest.  If any such owner is not Coopers Park Corporation (CPC), describe in detail the relationship between CPC and each such owner.

2. Identify the person who ultimately has control, whether directly or indirectly, of the owner(s) from whom consent is required.
    
3. Provide the constituting documents, including all applicable share terms, of CPC, and if any owner from whom consent is required to grant access to Shaw is a not CPC, of such owner(s).
    
4. Provide any and all shareholder agreements, other agreements, arrangements, by-laws and documents that affect control of CPC and, if any owner from whom consent is required to grant access to Shaw is a not CPC, of such owner(s).  
    
5. Provide all agreements, by-laws and documents (that have not already been provided pursuant to question 4) that relate to the decision-making powers or process of the Board of Directors of CPC (for example, that establish committees of the Board of Directors) and, if any owner from whom consent is required to grant access to Shaw is a not CPC, of such owner(s).   
    
6. a) Identify all directors and officers of CPC and, if any owner from whom consent is required to grant access to Shaw is a not CPC, of such owner(s).
   b) Identify all members of any and all committees of the CPC, if any owner from whom consent is required to grant access to Shaw is a not CPC, of such owner(s).
7. Describe in detail any changes to the control and ownership structure of Novus Entertainment Inc. and Concord that have taken place since close of record for the proceeding leading to Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-69, 10 August 2007.