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This page has been archived on the Web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, 11 December 2013

Application number: 2013-1334-5

By E-mail

Pamela Dinsmore
Vice President, Regulatory
Rogers Communications Partnership

Dear Miss Dinsmore:

Re: Requests to exclude the intervention filed by CACTUS and by Ed Christie on behalf of Harvey Community TV

In letters dated 9 December and 10 December 2013, Rogers Communications Partnership (RCP) requested that the Commission reject, respectively, an intervention filed by the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations (CACTUS) and an intervention filed by Ed Christie on behalf of Harvey Community TV in response to the above-referenced application and return them without further consideration. According to RCP, the interventions were not properly served on Rogers in contravention of the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules).

In a response filed on 10 December 2013, CACTUS provided evidence that it did attempt to copy RCP with its intervention by email before the 8PM deadline on 6 December 2013. Its attempts, however, were rejected by the RCP email servers with no indication given as to why the emails were rejected. On 9 December 2013, CACTUS succeeded in providing RCP by email with most of its intervention, having to make alternative arrangements to deliver the remaining part on 10 December 2013, a large audio file attachment, by hand to RCP.

The Commission received the interventions by both parties noted above before the deadline of 8PM on 6 December 2013. With the exception of the large audio file attachment included with the CACTUS intervention[1], these were made available on the CRTC website at 8PM on 9 December 2013.

The evidence indicates that CACTUS made several attempts to copy RCP by email with its intervention before and after the deadline and technical issues on RCP’s end appear to have caused the intervention to not be delivered. CACTUS took reasonable means, thereafter, to ensure that RCP had its complete intervention.

With regard to the intervention filed by Ed Christie on behalf of Harvey Community TV, staff notes that it is one of a total of five interventions and is a one page document that was available to RCP on the Commission website as of 8PM on 9 December 2013. Staff considers that having to regard this as part of the record would pose no significant burden to RCP.

Consequently, both interventions will form part of the record.

Given the difficulties incurred, staff considers it reasonable that RCP be given until 18 December 2013 to provide a reply.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Donna Gill
Senior Manager, Distribution Regulatory Policy

c.c. Cathy Edwards, CACTUS
Ed Christie, on behalf of Harvey Community TV

[1] The audio file included as part of the CACTUS intervention is available at the Commission offices and upon request, within two (2) working days, at any other Commission offices and documentation centres.

Date modified: