ARCHIVED - Broadcasting Procedural Letter addressed to Peter Miller (Avis de recherche) and Peggy Tabet (Videotron s.e.n.c.)

This page has been archived on the Web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, 20 January 2016

Peter Miller, Counsel for:
Avis de recherche

Peggy Tabet
Videotron s.e.n.c.

Dear Sir, Madam:

Re: Part 1 application by Avis de Recherche against Videotron filed 18 January 2016 (Application 2016-0071-8)

We are in receipt of the Part 1 application filed on 18 January 2016 by Avis de Recherche (ADR) against Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of Videotron s.e.n.c. (Videotron).

Section 15.01 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations requires that, during a dispute between a broadcasting distribution undertaking (BDU) and a programmer, the BDU continue to distribute the programming service at the same rates and on the same terms and conditions as it did before the dispute (the “standstill” rule).

Accordingly, Videotron is required to continue to distribute ADR at the same rates and on the same terms and conditions as it did before the dispute until the Commission issues a decision on the matter.

In Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2015-96, the Commission stated that the standstill rule should not be invoked lightly, nor be relied upon to grant an effective access right. As a result, this application will be processed expeditiously according to the following deadlines.

Interventions and Answer by Videotron: 27 January 2016
Reply by ADR: 3 February 2016

We remind the parties that staff-assisted mediation is confidential and undertaken on a “without prejudice” basis. As such, parties must refrain from referring to anything which occurred during staff-assisted mediation when making any formal submissions to the Commission.

A copy of this letter and all related correspondence will be added to the public record of the proceeding.


[Original signed by]

Julia Bresee
Senior Analyst, Alternative Dispute Resolution

Date modified: