ARCHIVED - Telecom Procedural Letter addressed to Paul Cowling (Shaw Communications Inc.) and Matt Meehan (Concord Pacific Developments Inc.)

This page has been archived on the Web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, 7 August 2015

Our reference: 8622-S9-201508045


Mr. Paul Cowling
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
Shaw Communications Inc.
40 Elgin Street, Suite 1400
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5K6

Mr. Matt Meehan
Senior Vice President Planning
Concord Pacific Developments Inc.
9th Floor 1095 W. Pender St
Vancouver, British-Columbia V6E 2M6

RE:  Interrogatories and procedural determinations with respect to a Part 1 application from Shaw Cablesystems G.P. for non-discriminatory and timely access to Concord Pacific Multi-Dwelling Unit Projects

Dear Sirs,

On 30 July 2015, Shaw Cablesystems G.P (Shaw) filed the above-referenced application with the Commission. This letter addresses several procedural issues arising from this application.

The Service of Respondents

Pursuant to section 22(1)(b), an application must be served on any respondent, which is defined as a person who is adverse in interest to the applicant. Commission staff notes that there is some uncertainty as to which Canadian Carriers have been provided pre-construction access to three multi-dwelling unit (MDU) projects that are the subject of the application (i.e. the Monet, the Met and The Arc). Therefore, in order to ensure that all potential respondents are identified and served, additional information is required from Concord Pacific Developments Inc. (Concord)

Pursuant to subsection 37(2) of the Telecommunications Act (the Act), the Commission may require a person other than a Canadian carrier that is in possession of information that the Commission considers necessary for the administration of the Act, to submit the information to the Commission.
Concord is therefore required to provide comprehensive answers, including any supporting information, to the attached interrogatories.  Responses to the attached interrogatories are to be filed with the Commission, and served on Shaw, by 10 August 2015.

Upon receiving the information regarding the identity of the service provider(s), Shaw is to serve the identified service provider(s) with a copy of its 30 July 2015 application by 12 August 2015.

Procedural request for an abridged deadlines and expedited hearing of the matter

In its application, Shaw submitted that:

[...]  Shaw submits that this is an appropriate case for the Commission to abridge the timelines normally associated with an application filed pursuant to Part 1 of the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure in order to issue the orders requested by Shaw as early as possible and by no later than August 31, 2015.

Commission staff notes that a delay in granting the relief requested could potential cause harm to Shaw and to the public interest in terms of competition, should the actions of Concord or Novus Entertainment Inc. (Novus) be shown to have violated the Telecommunications Act and the Commission’s policies. As such, Commission staff agrees that the matter should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. However, as indicated by Shaw at paragraph 49 of its application, this dispute involves a number of issues that will require the development of a fulsome record. As noted above, it is also possible that additional respondents will need to be served.  Finally, Commission staff notes that Shaw did not provide any suggested timelines, nor any argument as to how these abridged timelines would preserve the ability of the Commission to develop the necessary record and the ability of other parties to respond to its application.

Commission staff notes that, applying the standard timelines of 30 days for the filing of Answers and Interventions, as well as 10 days for reply, the record of this proceeding could potentially be closed as of 10 September 2015. A Commission decision on this matter could, therefore, be rendered in an expeditious manner without the need to abrogate timelines.

Consequently, Commission staff denies Shaw’s request for abridged timelines.

Additional requests for information to Concord

In order to ensure that the Commission has certain basic facts necessary for its analysis on this record, Concord is to provide, by no later than the deadline for the filing of an Answer in this application,  the following information with respect to three of its MDU projects, namely The Monet, The Met and The Arc;

Concord is also to provide, by no later than the deadline for the filing of an Answer in this application, details of the ownership structure of  Concord Pacific Developments Inc. and any interrelations in that ownership with Novus Entertainment Inc.

Any supporting information should be included.

This letter and all subsequent correspondence will be added to the public record of the above noted proceeding. As set out in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin 2010-961, Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, parties may designate certain information as confidential. Parties must provide an abridged version of the document involved, accompanied by a note explaining how the information removed is confidential.


Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution & Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

c.c:  Donna Robertson, Co-President & Chief Legal Officer, Novus Entertainment Inc.
Bernard Montigny, CRTC ,
Kevin Pickell, CRTC,


Interrogatories to be answered by Concord.

  1. Has Concord granted access to, or signed any access agreement for, The Monet and/or The Met and/or The Arc multi-dwelling unit (MDU) projects to any telecommunication service providers (TSPs)?

    1. If yes:
      1. Identify, for each MDU, each of the TSPs.
      2. For each TSP, indicate the type of access that has been granted (e.g. access to the main telephone room, access to the communications closets or access to each individual unit)
      3. Provide the Commission with a copy of any agreements signed between Concord and the TSPs.
Date modified: