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This page has been archived on the Web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, 4 March 2014
Our File: 8690-E17-201401455
BY EMAIL
Ms. Suzanne Morin
General Counsel- Regulatory & Privacy Chief
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership
Floor 19, 160 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
regulatory@bell.aliant.ca
RE: Eastlink Part 1 application- Bell Aliant Support Structure Invoices
Dear Ms. Morin:
On 17 February 2014, Bragg Communications Inc., operating as Eastlink (Eastlink) filed the above-noted Part 1 application.
By letter dated 25 February 2014, Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant) requested that the Commission suspend consideration of Eastlink’s Part 1 application until after the escalating dispute resolution process provided in section 11 of the Support Structure License Agreement (SSLA) has been exhausted.
In particular, Bell Aliant stated that neither party to date had requested the establishment of a joint committee, and that pursuant to section 11 of the SSLA, it was inappropriate to send the matter to the Commission for resolution until this step had been completed. Bell Aliant stated that since the filing of the Part 1 application has made it clear that the dispute cannot be resolved at the current management level, it was writing, under separate cover, to Eastlink to request the establishment of a joint committee.
By letter dated 26 February 2014, Eastlink requested that the Commission deny Bell Aliant’s request. Eastlink stated that in Bell Aliant had, in fact, requested the establishment of a joint committee by correspondence dated 21 December 2012, and that a joint committee meeting did occur on 19 March 2013 with senior executives of each company present. Eastlink stated that the joint committee meeting did not lead to a resolution of this matter, nor did nay of the subsequent follow-up meetings and correspondence. Eastlink added that in a letter sent on 25 February 2014 from Bell Aliant to Eastlink (which Bell Aliant referred to in its letter to the Commission). The representatives that Bell Aliant proposed attend the joint committee meeting were the same people Eastlink met during the joint committee meeting of
19 March 2013.
By letter dated 26 February 2014, Bell Aliant stated that, while it did make reference to invoking the establishment of a joint committee pursuant to section 11 of its SSLA in its letter to Eastlink dated 21 December 2012, neither Bell Aliant nor Eastlink ever established such a joint committee as negotiations were progressing. Bell Aliant argued that the establishment of a joint committee is a formal step and that the presence of senior representatives who would be appointed to such a committee at prior meetings does not mean that the formal step of creating a joint committee has been completed.
Determination
Commission staff notes that Eastlink has indicated that this dispute arose in July 2012, when it provided formal notice disputing the invoice provided by Bell Aliant. The correspondence and meetings between the parties described by Eastlink in its application show an escalation of the dispute through different levels of management at both companies generally in line with the dispute resolution process set out in Section 11 of the SSLA. The evidence demonstrates that Bell Aliant did request the establishment of a joint committee by letter dated 21 December 2012 and that subsequent meetings between senior executives of each company did occur, including that on 19 March 2013.
The above leads to the conclusion that, given the evidence on the file, the purpose behind section 11 of the SSLA has been fulfilled in that reasonable attempts to negotiate a solution between the parties, including by escalating the dispute to senior management, were taken before a dispute under the SSLA was brought to the Commission. In addition, nothing prevents the parties from conducting further meetings at the senior management level in an attempt to resolve issue at any point during the Part 1 application process. The parties are strongly encouraged to do so.
Therefore, with these considerations in mind, the Part 1 process will not be suspended as requested by Bell Aliant.
In view of the time that has elapsed to consider Bell Aliant’s request, and the possibility of further negotiation between the parties, the date for filing an answer or an intervention to Eastlink’s application under of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, is extended to 4 April 2014. Eastlink may file a reply on 14 April 2014.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Mario Bertrand
Director, Dispute Resolution
Telecommunications
c.c: Eastlink, Regulatory.Matters@corp.eastlink.ca
Jesslyn Mullaney, CRTC, jesslyn.mullaney@crtc.gc.ca
- Date modified: