ARCHIVED - Telecom Procedural Letter Addressed to Paul Cowling (Shaw Cablesystems G.P.) and Stephen Schmidt (TELUS Communications Company)

Ottawa, 21 April 2016

Our reference: 8661-S9-201601625

BY EMAIL

Mr. Paul Cowling
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
Shaw Cablesystems G.P.
40 Elgin Street, Suite 1400
Ottawa, Ontario  K1P 5K6
regulatory@sjrb.ca

Mr. Stephen Schmidt
Vice-President - Telecom Policy & Chief Regulatory Legal Counsel
Telecom Policy and Regulatory Affairs
TELUS Communications Company
215 Slater Street, 8th floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 0A6
regulatory.affairs@telus.com

Re:  Shaw Cablesystems G.P. - Application regarding alleged overbilled charges by TELUS Communications Company for service entrance ducts in British Columbia

Dear Sirs,

On 12 February 2016, Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Shaw) filed the above referenced application. In it, Shaw alleges that TELUS Communications Company (TCC) is inappropriately billing it for service entrance ducts in British Columbia.

TCC filed comments on Shaw’s application on 16 March 2016, and the record of the proceeding closed on 29 March 2016 when Shaw filed its reply.

On 13 April 2016, TCC filed a letter with the Commission objecting to some of the information provided by Shaw in its reply. TCC requested that the Commission:

1. expunge Attachments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 from Shaw’s reply comments;
2. expunge any paragraphs that contain references to the Attachments described in a) above, namely paragraphs 19, 34, 35, 36, and 57;
3. remove Shaw’s reply comments from the public record until Shaw files a revised reply with all the information described in a) and b) above removed; and
4. determine that no further comments are required with respect to Shaw’s application.

Staff considers that the information adduced by Shaw in its reply was directly responsive to matters included in TCC’s comments, and served to rebut statements of fact made by TCC. Notwithstanding this, staff considers that much of this newly filed information related to matters raised by Shaw in its initial application, and staff is therefore of the view that Shaw should have provided the relevant information at the time it filed its application.

Staff is of the view that Attachments 3, 4, and 5, for example, could have been provided by Shaw in its initial application.  Staff considers that by only providing this evidence as part of its reply, Shaw essentially split its case in two.

However, in the interest of having a fulsome record for the benefit of the Commission, staff considers that it would be worthwhile to maintain this information on the record.  Further, in the interest of fairness, staff considers that TCC should have the opportunity to provide comment on the information in question.

Based on the record of this proceeding, Shaw continues to pay a portion of the charges billed by TCC for service entrance ducts. Further, Shaw is the applicant seeking relief in this proceeding.  Accordingly, staff considers that TCC will not face any undue hardship due to the extension of the process associated with Shaw’s application.

In light of the above, Commission staff modifies the process for the above noted application, taking into account other regulatory proceedings that are currently in progress, as follows:

1. By no later than 02 May 2016, TCC may file with the Commission and serve a copy on Shaw, comments limited exclusively to Attachments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and those statements set out in paragraphs 19, 34, 35, 36, and 57 of Shaw’s reply that point to the attachments.
2. Shaw may file an answer, limited to TCC’s comments on the information specified above, serving a copy on TCC, by 09 May 2016.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution & Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.:  Kevin Pickell, CRTC, 819-997-4580, kevin.pickell@crtc.gc.ca

Date modified:

2016-04-21