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This page has been archived on the Web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 March 2013

Our reference: 8650-P8- 201215913


Mr. John Lawford
Public interest Advocacy Centre and Canada Without Poverty
One Nicholas Street, Suite 1204
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 7B7

Re: Part 1 Application - Billing of calls placed from Bell Canada payphones which contravene the Telecommunications Act and are inconsistent with directives issued by the CRTC

Dear Mr. Lawford:

On 14 November 2012, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) on its own behalf and as counsel to Canada Without Poverty (CWP), collectively PIAC/CWP, filed the above-noted application.

On 11 February 2013, Bell Canada filed an answer to the application and on 23 February 2013 PIAC/CWP filed a reply.

Commission staff has reviewed the information on the record and determined that additional information is required to properly assess the application. Accordingly, PIAC/CWP is requested to provide by 2 April 2013, responses to the requests for further information set out in the Attachment, serving a copy on Bell Canada.

Bell Canada may file comments solely in relation to the responses filed by PIAC/CWP by 8 April 2013, serving a copy on PIAC/CWP. PIAC/CWP may file reply comments by
12 April 2013, serving a copy on Bell Canada.

Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date.


Original signed by K. Wardle for

Mario Bertrand
Director, Dispute Resolution and Decisions,

cc: Bell Canada



1. At paragraph 19 of their reply, PIAC/CWP refers to charges of twenty to thirty dollars for a brief long distance between points within a single province. Provide the evidence upon which the statement in paragraph 19 is based, indicating the consumer’s method of payment, time, duration and origin and termination of the call. Provide a copy of the invoice, if available. Provide any other evidence upon which the application was based, with details, to support PIAC/CWP’s claim of high charges for long distance calls.

Date modified: