ARCHIVED - Broadcasting Procedural Letter addressed to Susan Wheeler (Rogers Broadcasting Limited) and Angelo Contarin (Unifor Local 723M)
This page has been archived on the Web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, 8 July 2015
By email
Our file numbers: 2015-0576-0
Ms. Susan Wheeler
Vice-President, Regulatory, Media
Rogers Broadcasting Limited
333 Bloor Street East, 6th floor
Toronto, ON
M4W 1G9
And
Mr. Angelo Contarin
Vice-President,
Unifor Local 723M
62 Widmer St., 2nd floor
Toronto, ON
M5V 2E9
By e-mail: susan.wheeler@rci.rogers.com
angeloc@unifor723M.org
Re: Procedural request regarding a Part 1 application (2015-0576-0) by Unifor 723M (Unifor) for an expedited public hearing regarding the cancellation of original local third-language television newscasts by Rogers Broadcasting Limited (Rogers) on its OMNI stations, and a mandatory order requiring their reinstatement– Follow-up to letters filed by Rogers on 30 June 2015 and by Unifor on 2 July 2015
Dear: Ms. Wheeler
Mr. Contarin,
As part of a procedural request in regard to the above noted Part 1 application process, the Commission received a letter from Rogers on 30 June 2015 in which it argued that the Commission should not accept a reply filed by Unifor on 29 June 2015, which was submitted following Rogers’ 23 June 2015 response to a procedural letter sent by the CommissionFootnote 1. Subsequently, on July 2 2015, Unifor sent a letter to the Commission requesting that the Commission reject Rogers’ opposition to its reply.
In its 30 June 2015 letter, Rogers argued that the Commission should reject Unifor’s 29 June 2015 reply for a number of reasons including that the Commission did not, in its 18 June 2015 procedural letter, specifically confer a right of reply to Unifor. Notwithstanding this oversight, were the Commission to allow both filings, Rogers argued that the Commission would effectively grant Unifor two rights of reply when only one is afforded under the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules of Procedure). Rogers also stated that Unifor provided additional details, arguments and new evidence in its 29 June 2015 reply, which go beyond the issues raised in Rogers’ response to the Commission’s procedural letter and pertain directly to the initial Part 1 application filed by Unifor.
In its 2 July 2015 letter, Unifor requested that the Commission dismiss the 30 June 2015 letter sent by Rogers in which it requested the exclusion of Unifor’s reply, stating that Rogers did not provide any grounds to support its claim and that its reply followed the Rules of Procedure.
Having considered the arguments and concerns put forth by both parties, Unifor’s 29 June 2015 reply will be accepted and placed on the public record. However, only the information pertaining specifically to Unifor’s procedural request will be taken into consideration in the analysis of this matter.
Furthermore, no further correspondence from the parties involved is required in regard to this procedural request.
Should you need further information concerning this procedural letter, please contact Tina Louise Latourelle by e-mail at tina-louise.latourelle@crtc.gc.ca, by telephone at 819-997-9392 or by fax at 819-994-0218.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Peter Foster,
Director General
TV Policy and Applications
Footnotes
- Footnote 1
-
On 18 June 2015, the Commission sent a procedural letter to Rogers asking them to serve upon Unifor and file with the Commission a reply to the above noted procedural request.
- Date modified: