ARCHIVED - Broadcasting Procedural Letter Addressed to Susan Wheeler (Rogers Media 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This page has been archived on the Web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, 14 November 2016


Ms. Susan Wheeler
Vice-President, Regulatory, Media
Rogers Media Inc.

Dear Ms. Wheeler,

Re: Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2016-225, Applications by Rogers Media Inc. – Applications 2016-0009-9 and 2016-0377-0
Procedural request for additional supporting interveners to appear at the public hearing

The Commission is in receipt of a letter dated 27 October 2016 from Rogers Media Inc. (Rogers) relating to the renewal of the television licences held by Rogers and its application for a new discretionary service with a mandatory distribution pursuant to section 9(1)(h) of the Broadcasting Act (the Rogers applications), as outlined in Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2016-225 (BNC 2016-225). 

In its letter, Rogers requested that the Commission increase the number of appearing interveners at the public hearing in support of its applications from five (5) to eight (8).  It submitted argued that this would be in the public interest, as it would provide the Commission and the public with a better understanding of the breadth and scope of the public support and demand for its services. 

Rogers also argued that it should be given the same opportunity that was granted to Bell Media (Bell) and to Corus Entertainment (Corus) to have additional supporting interveners, as Bell and Corus will both be appearing at the English- and French-language public hearings for their respective English- and French-language designated licensing groups, with distinct panels of supporting interveners at each hearing. Rogers further argued that it should be given the same opportunity for its third-language service, OMNI.

The Commission notes that the Bell and Corus English- and French-language applications were filed separately and are independent of one another, due to the specific issues and particularities associated to each language market.  In the case of Rogers, the Commission considers that its applications are interconnected because many of the commitments it made in its licence renewal application, which includes the renewal of its OMNI over-the-air stations, are dependent on the Commission’s decision regarding Rogers’ application for a new discretionary service with a mandatory distribution order. 

Moreover, the Bell and Corus English- and French-language applications will be considered by two different panels at two separate public hearings, while the Rogers applications will both be considered at the same public hearing.  Therefore, it was necessary to have two distinct panels of interveners at each public hearing in order to comment on the respective English- and French-language applications being considered.

In light of the above, the Commission denies Rogers’ request to increase the number of supporting appearing interveners for the Rogers applications, and maintains the number of appearing interveners supporting Rogers’ applications at the English-language public hearing at five (5).

Yours sincerely,

Danielle May-Cuconato
Secretary General

Date modified: