ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to David McComb (Edenshaw Homes Limited) and Jonathan Blakey (Bell Canada)
This page has been archived on the Web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, 6 February 2015
Our reference: 8622-B2-201411256
Mr. David McComb
President & CEO
Edenshaw Homes Limited
260 Brunel Rod
Mississauga, Ontario L4Z 1T5
Mr. Jonathan Blakey
19-160 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
Re: Bell Canada - Part 1 Application for access to the Edenshaw Homes Limited’s Chaz Yorkville multi-dwelling unit- Procedural request from Edenshaw Homes Limited
On 30 January 2015, Edenshaw Homes Limited (Edenshaw) filed a procedural request regarding Bell Canada’s 23 January 2015 final reply comments submitted in the context of the above-identified Part 1 application.
In its letter, Edenshaw argued that pursuant to a Commission staff letter dated 13 January 2015, Bell Canada’s final reply comments were to be limited to replying to Edenshaw's submissions dated 20 January 2015. Edenshaw submitted that Bell Canada did not limit its comments to replying to Edenshaw's submission, but also made new arguments and submissions well in excess of a reasonable reply.
Accordingly, Edenshaw is requesting that paragraph 25 of Bell Canada's 23 January 2015 final reply comments be struck from the record as it introduces recent correspondence between Bell and Edenshaw and cannot be seen as a reply to Edenshaw's submission of 20 January 2015.
In a reply dated 4 February 2015, Bell Canada argued that Edenshaw’s request should be dismissed since the evidence at issue was relevant and part of a proper reply. It further submitted that by repeating and corroborating the content of paragraph 25 in its own procedural request, Edenshaw’s request that the paragraph be struck from the record was now moot.
Commission staff notes that while Edensahw, in its procedural request, asked that paragraph 25 of Bell Canada's 23 January 2015 final reply comments be struck from the record, it also proceeded to comment on the correspondence being referred to in that paragraph. As such, staff considers that any procedural prejudice which might have arisen as a result of Bell Canada’s comments set out at paragraph 25 of its 23 January 2015 filing has been cured.
In light of the above, staff considers that all submissions made by all parties should be considered by the Commission when making a decision in the above referenced Part 1 application.
Original signed by
Director, Dispute Resolution & Regulatory Implementation
c.c.: Joel Fortune, Barrister & Solicitor, email@example.com
Pamela Dinsmore, Rogers Communications, firstname.lastname@example.org
Beanfield Technologies Inc. email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Jean-François Léger, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, email@example.com
Russ Friesen, MTS and Allstream Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
Danny Moreau, CRTC, email@example.com
- Date modified: