ARCHIVED - Telecom Procedural Letter Addressed to Tamir Israel (Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic)

Ottawa, 5 May 2015

File No.: 8620-C12-201401489

BY E-MAIL

Tamir Israel
Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic
University of Ottawa – Faculty of Law, Common Law Section
57 Louis Pasteur Street
Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5
tisrael@cippic.ca

Re: Telecom Notice of Consultation 2014-76^{Footnote 1} – Procedural request from Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic and OpenMedia.ca

In a letter dated 23 October 2014, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic and OpenMedia.ca (CIPPIC/OpenMedia) requested that the Commission accept its submission in the above-noted matter, which was filed after the deadline established in Telecom Notice of Consultation 2014-76. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission denies CIPPIC/OpenMedia’s request.

Procedure

In Telecom Notice of Consultation 2014-76, Canadian carriers that provide mobile wireless services were made parties to the proceeding. Other interested persons wishing to become a party to the proceeding were required to file an intervention by 15 May 2014. CIPPIC/OpenMedia filed a letter on that date which stated that it wished to be an intervener in the proceeding but that it did not have substantive comments at that time. Instead, it reserved its right to file comments at a later stage in the proceeding.

Parties were provided several opportunities to file additional submissions during the proceeding, including final submissions by 20 October 2014 with respect to any issues in the proceeding. On 23 October 2014, three days after the deadline for final submissions, CIPPIC/OpenMedia filed its only comments in this proceeding. It requested that the Commission exercise its discretion under section 7 of the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules) to dispense with the deadlines set out in Telecom Notice of Consultation 2014-76 and accept its filing.

CIPPIC/OpenMedia submitted that denying its request would harm the public interest by depriving the record of this proceeding of a vital source of input and would prejudice CIPPIC/OpenMedia by denying it the opportunity to present its views on the important matter before the Commission. CIPPIC/OpenMedia also submitted that, as the procedure did not provide for any other opportunity to file comments, the delay would not prejudice any other party as no one would be deprived of any opportunity to respond to their comments.

Commission’s analysis

In assessing CIPPIC/OpenMedia’s request, the Commission must determine whether considerations of public interest and fairness permit an exception in this case.

The Commission considers that while the public interest is served through the participation of parties, such as CIPPIC/OpenMedia, in its proceedings, it is critical to the public interest that the Commission maintain the integrity of its processes. All parties participating in a proceeding are provided a fair opportunity to both present their positions and to respond to those of others.

The structure of this proceeding allowed for two opportunities for parties to file interventions, defined by the Rules as the proper time to indicate support or opposition on a matter, as well as any facts or information that are the grounds for the party’s position. Final submissions to be filed on 20 October 2014 were the final opportunity for parties to present their argument to the Commission, with full knowledge of all evidence and positions before the Commission, similar in nature to a final reply.

The Commission notes that CIPPIC/OpenMedia is a regular participant in Commission proceedings and is familiar with their structure. The Commission also notes that other parties actively participated in this proceeding. These other parties made significant submissions at many stages of the proceeding, placing their positions and evidence on the record within the deadlines for submissions set out in Telecom Notice of Consultation 2014-76.

CIPPIC/OpenMedia’s 23 October 2014 submission provided for the first time its positions on the issues before the Commission, including argument and new evidence to which other parties had not had any opportunity to reply. In addition, CIPPIC/OpenMedia provided no reasons for why it was unable to file its submission on time, or why it waited until the final stage of the proceeding to file its argument and evidence.

The Commission considers that, apart from any prejudice that could be caused by the delay in filing the submission late, the absence of any right of reply to CIPPIC/OpenMedia’s submission creates prejudice to other parties. The Commission notes that the prejudice that this creates for other parties could have been addressed by reopening the record and permitting other parties to reply to CIPPIC/OpenMedia’s submission. However, the Commission considers that such a step would have been unfair to other parties who participated and complied with the Commission’s process. Further, such a step could undermine the efficacy of the Commission’s future proceedings of a similar nature.

In light of the above, the Commission considers that it is not in the public interest, nor is it consistent with the principles of fairness, for CIPPIC/OpenMedia’s submission to form part of the record of this proceeding. Accordingly, the Commission denies CIPPIC/OpenMedia’s request to accept its submission and determines that it does not form part of the record of this proceeding.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

John Traversy
Secretary General

cc: Crystal Hulley, CRTC, (819) 956-2095, crystal.hulley@crtc.gc.ca
Kim Wardle, CRTC, (819) 997-4945, kim.wardle@crtc.gc.ca
Distribution list

Distribution list:

Bell Mobility Inc., bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, regulatory@bellaliant.ca
TBayTel, rob.olenick@tbaytel.com
Huron Telecommunications Co-operative Limited, grubb@hurontel.on.ca
Hay Communications Co-operative Limited, a.schneider@hay.net
Rogers Communications Partnership, rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com
MTS Inc., iworkstation@mtsallstream.com
Lynx Mobility Inc., aahmed@lynxmobility.com
Execulink Telecom Inc., jonathan.scott@execulink.com
Videotron G.P., regaffairs@quebecor.com
Wightman Telecom Ltd., kgugan@wightman.ca
Quadro Communications Co-operative Inc., barry.stone@quadro.net
Bragg Communications Incorporated (EastLink), regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca
Sogetel Mobilité inc., sophie.houde@sogetel.com
Northwestel Inc., regulatoryaffairs@nwtel.ca
SSI Micro Ltd., regulatory@ssimicro.com
Brooke Telecom Co-operative Ltd., jim@brooketel.ca
Ice Wireless Inc., regulatory@icewireless.ca
Dryden Mobility, jsalina@dryden.ca
Fido Solutions Inc., regulatory.aff@fidomobile.ca
Saskatchewan Telecommunications, document.control@sasktel.com
Télébec, Limited Partnership, reglementa@telebec.com
KMTS, reglementa@telebec.com
Mornington Communications Co-operative Limited, rbanks@mornington.ca
NorthernTel, Limited Partnership, reglementa@telebec.com
Globalive Wireless Management Corp. (WIND), lisajackson@globalive.com
Data & Audio Visual Enterprises Wireless Inc. (MOBILICITY), gary.wong@mobilicity.ca
Cogeco Cable Inc., telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com
Vaxination Informatique, jfmezei@vaxination.ca
Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc., regulatory@cnoc.ca
Benjamin Klass, benjiklass@hotmail.com
Jean-François Léger, PIAC, jfleger@piac.ca
Sophy Lambert-Racine, UC, slambert-racine@uniondesconsommateurs.ca
Mobilexchange Ltd., mike.kedar@mobilexchange.ca
Raven Wireless, eric.zhelka@ravenwireless.ca
Tucows Inc., enoss@tucows.com
Canadian Cable Systems Alliance Inc., cedwards@ccsa.cable.ca
Aalborg University, roslyn@layton.dk
Primal Technologies Inc., regulatory@primaltech.com
TELUS Communications Company, regulatory.affairs@telus.com
Competition Bureau, Derek.Leschinsky@bc-cb.gc.ca

Date modified:

2015-05-05