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This page has been archived on the Web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.
By email : firstname.lastname@example.org
Our file : 2014-0212-2
Mr Barry Chapman
Vice-President – Regulatory Affairs
160 Elgin Street, 19th floor
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
Re : Procedural request in an application by Bell Canada regarding allegations of undue preference and a request for a mandatory order
The Commission received an application by Bell Canada, dated 11 March 2014, pursuant to Part 1 of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules), requesting:
• A declaration to the effect that Bell Canada’s inability to gain access to the York Harbour Club multi-dwelling unit building in order to provide broadcasting services on terms comparable to those offered to Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) subjects residents and Bell Canada to an undue disadvantage and grants Rogers an undue preference; and
• The issuance of a mandatory order under section 12 of the Broadcasting Act (the Act) that would preclude Rogers, effective 31 March 2014 or such earliest date thereafter fixed by the Commission, from providing its broadcasting services in the York Harbour Club condominium unless Bell Canada has been given timely access under reasonable terms and conditions, as set out in paragraph 36 of Telecom Decision 2014-42 (Decision 2014-42).
In its application, Bell Canada requests that the Commission expedite consideration of its application so as to enable the Commission to issue its relief on or before the 31 March 2014 deadline established in Decision 2014-42. Specifically, Bell Canada requests that the
timelines set out in the Rules be amended such that any answer to the application provided by Rogers and/or Plaza Corporation, Plazacorp Investments Limited and West Harbour City (III) (collectively Plazacorp) be submitted by no later than 14 March 2014 and that any reply comments provided by Bell Canada be submitted by no later than 17 March 2014.
Commission staff acknowledges that, in the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to shorten the timelines set out in the Rules. Commission staff, however, is concerned that Bell Canada’s proposed timelines would not provide parties and any interested person sufficient time to provide meaningful submissions. Commission staff further notes that pursuant to section 18 of the Act, the Commission is to hold a public hearing in connection with the making of a mandatory order under s.12(2). Commission staff considers that Bell Canada’s proposed timelines do not take this requirement into account.
Commission staff requests that Bell Canada confirm by no later than 12 p.m. EDT on 13 March 2014 whether it wishes to maintain its request for a mandatory order or otherwise amend its request for relief, making sure to copy all persons copied with the application.
Commission staff considers that the following timelines would be appropriate in the event that Bell Canada decides to abandon its request for a mandatory order:
• Rogers may file an answer and any interested person may file an intervention by no later than 21 March 2014;
• Bell Canada may file its reply comments by no later than 26 March 2014 .
Commission staff considers that should Bell Canada maintain its request for the issuance of a mandatory order, the timelines set out above would likely need to be revised to properly account for relevant statutory requirements.
Answers and interventions filed with the Commission must be served on Bell Canada, Rogers and Plazacorp. Bell Canada’s reply comments must be served on the above-identified persons and any other person that has provided an intervention.
Furthermore, in order to assist all interested persons, the record associated with Bell Canada’s application that resulted in Decision 2014-42 (Commission file number 8622-B2-201312917) is hereby made a part of the record of the current proceeding.
[Original signed by:]
Senior Policy Analyst
Television policy and applications
Pamela Dinsmore, Rogers Communications Inc., email@example.com
Howard M. Hacker Plazacorp Investments Limited, firstname.lastname@example.org
Jeff King, Plazacorp Investments Limited, email@example.com
- Date modified: