ARCHIVED - Letter
This page has been archived on the Web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.
Ottawa, 10 September 2009
Lisa Goetz
Globalive Communications Corp.
48 Yonge Street, Suite 1200
Toronto , ON M5E 1G6
Dear Ms. Goetz:
The Commission is in receipt of your letter dated 3 September 2009. In that letter, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, on behalf of Globalive Wireless Management Corp. (Globalive) requested a ruling from the Commission indicating that it would not disclose certain confidential information that Globalive may present to the Commission during the hearing to be held in connection with Telecom Notice of Consultation 2009-429.
In particular, in accordance with subsection 39(1) of the Telecommunications Act, Globalive requested a ruling that the Commission will not disclose any information regarding the name or other identifying characteristics of a certain Canadian financial institution (the Bank), its representatives, or any other financial institution that may appear at the hearing on this matter to deal with evidence of Globalive's past, current and projected financing plans.
Globalive submitted that these financing plans are the subject of Commission Interrogatory Globalive (CRTC) 04Aug09-4.12, which has already been designated as confidential, and that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss to the Bank or other financial institution and prejudice Globalive's competitive commercial position within the meaning of paragraph 39(1)(c) of the Telecommunications Act :
Disclosure of the name and other identifying information of the Bank could result in a material financial loss of business to the Bank (or to other financial institutions) if a major Incumbent Wireless Carrier chose to direct its financing work elsewhere in response to learning that the Bank (or other financial institutions) are assisting Globalive in this regulatory proceeding or generally in its financing plans.
Globalive further submitted that
[I]t could reasonably be expected that Globalive would incur a material financial loss as well as prejudice to its competitive position if the Bank or other financial institutions decided to refrain from assisting Globalive in its financing and related activities out of a concern that the Bank or other financial institutions could lose business due to their work for Globalive.
On 4 September 2009 , Bell Canada ( Bell ) and TELUS Communications Company (TELUS) wrote to the Commission, objecting to Globalive's request.
Bell submitted that while the financial plans discussed in Interrogatory Globalive (CRTC)04Aug09-4.12 were treated in confidence by the Commission, the identity of the financial institution is a separate matter. Bell further asserted that there is no objective evidence giving rise to a reasonable expectation that an incumbent carrier would transfer its business to another lender such that material financial loss would result. Finally, Bell submitted that the public interest favoured disclosing the identity of the Banker and any other financial witnesses, and that granting Globalive's request would set a bad precedent.
TELUS submitted that Globalive's asserted fears of financial loss and retribution are not credible and expressed doubt that any of Globalive's contemplated financing activity would remain confidential.
Globalive did not file a reply in response to the comments of Bell and TELUS.
The Commission considers that granting anonymity, in a public proceeding, to a witness or to any organisation associated therewith would be justifiable, if ever, only in the most exceptional circumstances. The Commission finds that in the circumstances of this case, the specific direct harm, if any, which might result from disclosing the identity of the witnesses or associated organisation would not outweigh the public interest in such disclosure.
In the result, Globalive's request for a ruling that the Commission would not disclose any information regarding the name or other identifying characteristics of a bank or other financial institution or their representatives is denied.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
John Keogh for/
Robert A. Morin
Secretary General
c.c. Interested Parties to Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2009-429
- Date modified: