ARCHIVED - Telecom Procedural Letter Addressed to Geoffrey White (PIAC-CAC)
This page has been archived on the Web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, 13 November 2014
Our reference: 8620-P8-201405606
Mr. Geoffrey White
Counsel
Public Interest Advocacy Centre and
Consumers’ Association of Canada
gwhite@piac.ca
Subject: Application regarding Rogers “Next” and TELUS “T-UP!” – Response to PIAC-CAC’s procedural request
Dear Mr. White:
The Commission is in receipt of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Consumers’ Association of Canada’s (collectively “PIAC-CAC”) letter dated
31 October 2014, in which it requests that the Commission provide PIAC-CAC with the opportunity to respond to Telus Communications Company’s (TELUS) new arguments outlined in its letter dated 31 October 2014.
PIAC-CAC contend TELUS introduced new arguments in its letter, specifically statements as to:
- why the Commission has “no legal basis” to grant an aspect of the relief (refundability of fees) claimed by PIAC-CAC;
- how the Wireless Code does not contain any requirement to notify customers that “past fees for service” may be non-reimbursable because that “would be entirely superfluous, under basic principles of contract law”; and
- how TELUS’s construes its T-UP! program, and how TELUS has not received any complaints and how that is evidence of TELUS has clearly communicated the program to customers.
Commission staff does not consider statements relating to the matter identified in (i) above to constitute a new argument as this argument was originally introduced in TELUS’ answer dated 1 August 2014 (paragraphs 25-29). Furthermore, these statements add nothing substantive to arguments already made by TELUS. However, staff is of the view that statements relating to the matters identified in (ii) and (iii) above do relate to new arguments.
Commission staff considers it appropriate to provide PIAC-CAC with the opportunity to respond to these new arguments. PIAC-CAC may file a response with the Commission no later than 27 November 2014, confining its comments to the new arguments (statements ii and iii identified above) presented in TELUS’ letter dated 31 October 2014.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Meghan Justus at 819-635-6959 or by email at meghan.justus@crtc.gc.ca.
Sincerely,
[Original signed]
Nanao Kachi
Director, Social and Consumer Policy
c.c.: John Lawford, PIAC, jlawford@piac.ca
Bruce Cran, CAC, bcranbiz@telus.net
Dawn Hunt, Rogers, rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com
Stephen Schmidt, TELUS, regulatory.affairs@telus.com
Jean-François Mezei, Vaxination Informatique, jfmezei@vaxination.ca
Mirko Bibic, Bell, bell.regulatory@bell.ca
- Date modified: