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This page has been archived on the Web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, 21 December 2012
Our reference: 8690-R28-201205204
BY EMAIL
Pamela J. Dinsmore
Vice President, Regulatory
Rogers Communications Partnership
333 Bloor Street East, 9th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M4W 1G9
pam.dinsmore@rci.rogers.com
rci_gr@rci.rogers.com
Barbara A. McIsaac, Q.C.
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
World Exchange Plaza
100 Queen St., Suite 1100
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J9
bmcisaac@blg.com
RE: Part 1 application seeking a Commission determination as to the appropriate allocation of the costs of certain relocations requested by the Regional Municipality of York
Dear Madams:
On 2 May 2012, Rogers Communications Partnership (RCP) filed the above-mentioned Part 1 application with the Commission. In its application, the company sought a Commission determination regarding the appropriate allocation of the costs associated with the relocation of RCP’s facilities to accommodate the Regional Municipality of York’s (York Region) vivaNext transit construction project.
The Commission notes that it is RCP’s position that York Region’s requirement to bury its telecommunications facilities is purely for aesthetic purposes, given that hydro poles will continue to run along the affected rights-of-way. The Commission has in previous decisions found that the costs associated with relocation for beautification, aesthetics, or other similar purposes should be the sole responsibility of the municipality. 1
The Commission further notes that it is York Region’s position that its requirement for carriers, such as RCP, to bury their facilities is not primarily for aesthetic purposes, but rather includes transit planning, design, and the overall goal of developing a safer street environment.2
Given the information presently on the record, the Commission is not convinced that the purpose supporting York Region’s request to RCP to relocate its facilities is limited to aesthetics. Neither is it convinced that the purpose is for reasons other than aesthetics (e.g. accessibility, functionality, and/or safety).
In light of this, the Commission directs RCP and York Region to resume negotiations in an attempt to resolve this matter. Should RCP and York Region be unable to come to a negotiated agreement within 60 days of the date of this letter, either party may ask the Commission to issue a determination on the appropriate principles that should govern the allocation of identified relocation costs. The Commission notes, however, that before issuing such a determination, it may require each party to provide further evidence supporting their position regarding the purpose(s) supporting the required relocation of facilities.
Sincerely,
Original signed by:
John Traversy
Secretary General
[1] See, for example, Shaw Cablesystems Limited’s request for access to highways and other public places within the District of Maple Ridge on terms and conditions in accordance with Decision 2001-23, Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-100 , 25 October 2007, and MTS Allstream Inc. – Application regarding a Municipal Access Agreement with the City of Vancouver, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-150, 19 March 2009.
[2] For example, York Region’s 4 June 2012 filling of Annex E (York Region’s regional streetscape policy, pages 2 and 18); and Annex F (York Region’s Official Plan, section 7.5, Energy and Utilities).
- Date modified: