ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter - 8622-S9-200800111

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Letter

Ottawa, 19 March 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

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

On 10 March 2008, Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw) submitted in reply that, with respect to negotiations, Shaw and Concord Pacific Group Inc. ( Concord ) met on 6 March 2008 and that Shaw is awaiting a reply from Concord to a written proposal made by Shaw on 7 March 2008.

We are pleased to see that the two parties have met and encourage parties to continue negotiations.   However, we note that the decision-making process with respect to this application will not be put on hold but will proceed in conjunction with the ongoing negotiations to ensure that, in the event the parties cannot arrive at an agreement, there is no further delay.

On 26 February 2008, Concord filed responses to the interrogatories set out in Attachment 1 to the Commission's letter of 20 February 2008.   As in some instances answers to the questions were either not provided or were not complete, Concord is to respond to the following additional interrogatories as set out in Attachment 1 by 27 March 2008.   Concord is reminded of the need to provide responsive answers.   Shaw will have an opportunity to file, by 2 April 2008, a reply solely with respect to such further responses.

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.

Yours sincerely, 

Mario Bertrand
A/Director, Competition Implementation and Technology
Telecommunications

 

cc: janet.yee@concordpacific.com *
      jean.brazeau@sjrb.ca
     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 )

  1. Refer to Concord(CRTC)20Feb08-1a, "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."

    In its response to Concord (CRTC)20Feb08-1a, Concord submitted that it has the authority to discuss with Shaw proposals for access to Coopers Lookout. Concord also submitted that Concord can cause Coopers Lookout Developments Limited Partnership (CLDLP) to discuss access matters with Shaw.     Identify the entity that has the authority at this time to discuss with Shaw proposals for access to Coopers Lookout.

  2. Refer to Concord(CRTC)20Feb08-1d, "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. "

    In response to Concord(CRTC)20Feb08-1d, Concord submitted that the developer for Coopers Lookout is CLDLP, which is indirectly owned and controlled by Concord . By virtue of this ownership relationship, Concord can cause CLDLP to discuss access matters with Shaw. Concord further submitted with respect to the Mariner and Flagship, see response to question 1b). It is noted that with respect to the Mariner and Flagship buildings, the response in 1b) does not state whether consent by the owner is necessary; rather, it states that consent may be required.

    For each of the three buildings, state whether consent by the owner or another person is necessary to conclude a binding access agreement with Shaw, and if so, identify such person.  

  3. Refer to Concord(CRTC)20Feb08-1e, "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."

    In its response to Concord (CRTC)20Feb08-1e, Concord submitted " Concord " for the Coopers Lookout building and "CPC" for the Mariner and Flagship buildings.   Elsewhere in its interrogatory responses, Concord identified itself as the developer (of Coopers Lookout), whereas CPC is identified as the owner / developer (of Mariner and Flagship).

    Identify the owner of Coopers Lookout Building , and the nature of its legal interest.

  4. Refer to Concord(CRTC)20Feb08-2, "Identify the person who ultimately has control, whether directly or indirectly, of the owner(s) from whom consent is required."

In response to Concord(CRTC)20Feb08-2, Concord submitted " Concord (see response to 1(e)) for the Coopers Lookout building" and "CPC (see response to 1(e)) for the Mariner and Flagship buildings."

Concord did not identify in its response which person has direct or indirect control of CPC.  

It is noted that the CPC's Listing Application, Form 2B, dated 26 April 2007 and filed with the TSX Venture Exchange, contains the following information at pages 8 and 12:

(i)   the full name and percentage of shares beneficially owned by the 5 largest shareholders and by each person who is known to directly or indirectly beneficially own or control more than 10% of the voting securities of CCP are:

0689500 B.C. Ltd. - 30% of voting shares
Deloitte & Touche USA LLP - 7% of voting shares
Thomas Kol - 0.58% of voting shares
Gerald Meerkatz - 0.36% of voting shares
Dolphin Offshore Partners LP - 0.33% of voting shares

(ii)  There are 208 holders of voting shares and 1 holder of non-voting shares.

(a)   Identify the person who has direct or indirect control of CPC.

(b)   State whether the information contained in (i) and (ii) remains current.  

  1. If the information set out above in (i) is no longer accurate, provide the full name and percentage of voting shares beneficially owned by the 5 largest shareholders and by each person who is known to directly or indirectly beneficially own or control more than 10% of the voting securities of CCP; and,
  2. If the information set out above in (ii) is no longer accurate, file an updated chart as set out at page 12 of Form 2B dated 26 April 2007 (referred to above), in response to question 4(g) of that Listing Application.  

(b) Has Terence Hui, CEO, been appointed as Managing Director of CPC? If not, provide the full name of the President.

Date Modified: 2008-03-19
Date modified: