ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to Brian Duxbury (Duxbury Law Professional Corporation) and Philippe Gauvin (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This page has been archived on the Web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, 30 June 2015
Our reference: 8690-C210-201409219
BY EMAIL
Mr. Brian Duxbury
Solicitor
Duxbury Law Professional Corporation
500 – 1 King Street West
Hamilton, Ontario, L8P 1A4
brian@duxburylaw.ca
Mr. Philippe Gauvin
Bell Canada
Senior Counsel – Regulatory Law and Policy
Floor 19, 160 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 2C4
philippe.gauvin@bell.ca
bell.regulatory@bell.ca
RE: Application made on behalf of the City of Hamilton (City) with respect to the establishment of a Municipal Access Agreement between the City and Bell Canada – Responses to Interrogatories
In the above referenced application, Commission staff issued, on 2 June 2015, interrogatories to both the City of Hamilton (City) and Bell Canada. The interrogatories consisted of a table with four columns, where one column included the specific questions to be answered by the party identified in that column.
In its 23 June 2015 responses to these interrogatories, Bell Canada not only answered the questions that were addressed to it, but also submitted additional responses, commentaries and analysis that appear to go well beyond what was requested as part of the interrogatories. In this regard, Commission staff notes that as part of its responses, Bell Canada suggested questions the Commission should be asking the City. Finally, Bell Canada submitted its own proposed Municipal Access Agreement and invited the City to comment on it.
Bell Canada’s decision to introduce, at this phase of the proceeding, additional materials not directly responsive to the interrogatories, and which could have been submitted as part of its 5 March 2015 Answer, is disruptive to the Commission’s processes and hinders the proper conduct of its proceedings. The filing of this information demonstrates a lack of respect for the interrogatories process established in the 2 June 2015 interrogatories letter.
Bell Canada also indicated in its 23 June 2015 letter that it would support an extension to the 3 July 2015 deadline for parties to respond to each other’s answers to the 2 June 2015 interrogatories. Commission staff notes that since the City appears to have confined its submissions to responding to the Commission’s interrogatories, there is no basis for extending Bell’s deadline. Accordingly, the 3 July 2015 deadline for the submission of Bell Canada’s arguments in response to the City’s answers to the 2 June 2015 interrogatories still applies. For clarity, this deadline relates to the submission of arguments addressed to answers that are directly responsive to the 2 June 2015 interrogatories.
In light of Bell Canada’s additional materials not directly responsive to the interrogatories, an extension to the City’s deadline would be appropriate. Accordingly, the City is invited to make submissions, by 31 July 2015, going to the substance of the additional responses, commentaries and analysis made by Bell Canada in its 23 June 2015 responses. The City may also submit its arguments in response to Bell Canada’s answers to the 2 June 2015 interrogatories by that date. Should the City decide to file in advance of the 31 July 2015 deadline and consider its filing to be complete, it should advise the Commission of such. This will serve to inform the Commission that the record associated with the above referenced application is closed.
Commission staff also notes that in its answer to the interrogatories dated 23 June 2015, Bell Canada quoted, at Attachment “A” of its submissions, the original questions from the 2 June 2015 interrogatories. Some of those questions made specific references to sections from Appendix “E” of the City’s original application. However, following a request from Bell Canada that certain documents from the City’s original application be designated as confidential, Commission staff, in a letter dated 23 October 2014, agreed with Bell Canada’s request that the entire document located at Appendix “E” be designated as confidential.
Section 39(2) of the Telecommunications Act indicates that where a person designates information as confidential and the designation is not withdrawn by that person, no person shall knowingly disclose that information. Bell is therefore to indicate, by 2 July 2015, whether it is withdrawing the confidentiality designation it made with respect to Appendix “E” of the City’s application.
If Bell Canada is rescinding the confidentiality status of Appendix “E”, the City is to file, by 8 July 2015, a non-confidential version of its 23 June 2015 answers to the interrogatories, to be put on the public record.
If Bell Canada does not rescind the confidentiality status of Appendix “E”, Bell is to file, by 8 July 2015, a confidential and an abridged version of Attachment “A” of its 23 June 2015 answer to the interrogatories. The City will also be required to file, by 8 July 2015, an abridged version of its 23 June 2015 answers to the interrogatories, to be put on the public record.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution & Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector
c.c.: David Marshall, Duxbury Law Professional Corporation, david@duxburylaw.ca
Danny Moreau, CRTC, danny.moreau@crtc.gc.ca
- Date modified: