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This page has been archived on the Web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.
Our reference: 8663-C12-201000653
Ottawa, 9 July 2010
(see Distribution List)
Re: Obligation to serve and other matters, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2010-43 – Response to interrogatory PIAC(TELUS)20May10-3
This letter addresses the procedure to be followed by parties with respect to the above-noted interrogatory response.
In response to interrogatory PIAC(TELUS)20May10-3, filed on 15 June 2010, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) on behalf of the Consumer Groups stated that they were preparing a legal opinion which would be provided to all parties at the earliest opportunity.
By letter dated 22 June 2010, TELUS Communications Company (TCC) stated that they did not object to a slight delay in the filing of such a legal opinion in response to its interrogatory. However, TCC submitted that all parties must have a reasonable amount of time to analyze the opinion and prepare any consequential interrogatories.
By letter dated 23 June 2010, PIAC stated that they would provide the requested legal opinion to the parties to the Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2010-43 proceeding on 20 July 2010. PIAC suggested parties that be permitted to address interrogatories on the PIAC’s legal opinion by 3 August 2010, with responses to these interrogatories due by 10 August 2010.
Commission staff considers that the proposed procedural dates above with respect to the response to interrogatory PIAC(TELUS)20May10-3 are appropriate.
Original signed by:
firstname.lastname@example.org; Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org; Regulatory@sjrb.ca; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; LBC_Consulting@live.ca; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
In interrogatory PIAC(TELUS)20May10-3, PIAC was requested to provide all references to Canadian common law cases that conclude that telecommunications service providers are common carriers.
- Date modified: