Broadcasting Commission Letter Addressed to Mr. Jesse Kugler and Ms. Avvy Go (CaleyWray Lawyers and Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic)

Ottawa, 13 December 2017


Mr. Jesse Kugler
CaleyWray Lawyers
Representative, Unifor and its Locals 723M and 830M

Ms. Avvy Go
Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic
And representative, Urban Alliance on Race Relations

Dear Mr. Kugler and Ms. Go:

Re: Procedural request regarding an application (2017-0975-0) by Unifor for an expedited public hearing concerning the alleged breach by Rogers of conditions of its OMNI stations, and for a mandatory order requiring its compliance

Re: Procedural request regarding an application (2017-0977-6) by CSALC/UARR for an expedited public hearing concerning the alleged breach of a condition of licence for OMNI Regional

This letter is in response to Unifor’s procedural request dated 2 October 2017, as well as the Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic (CSALC) and Urban Alliance on Race Relations’ (UARR) procedural request received 10 October 2017. In both of these requests, the respective parties have asked that the Commission amend its process for examining an alleged breach of condition of licence.

More specifically, Unifor and CSALC/UARR requested that the Commission call Rogers Media Inc. (Rogers) to an expedited public hearing to enable the Commission to determine whether its OMNI Regional service is in non-compliance with its condition of licence 11, as set out in Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2017-152, as it relates to the production of Chinese-language news programming. Unifor has further requested that the Commission permit parties to cross-examine Rogers at the requested expedited hearing and that any person appearing on behalf of Rogers be sworn or affirmed.

The Commission typically considers alleged breaches of a condition of licence by way of Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules). The written process provided by Part 1 of the Rules affords parties with the opportunity to make meaningful and complete submissions on these matters. In the Commission’s view, this type of process is appropriate for consideration of the applications in question. Consequently, the Commission denies the requests and will continue consideration of these applications under Part 1 of the Rules.

It should be noted that the Commission’s decision to deny these procedural requests does not constitute a determination on the merits of the applications as filed. The Commission will make its determination on those applications based on the full record of the proceeding and will issue its decision at a later date.

Please note that a copy of your letters and this response will be added to the public record.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Seidl
Acting Secretary General

c.c. Howard Law, Unifor,
Angelo Contarin, Unifor 723M,
Stephen Hawkins, Unifor 830M,
Nigel Barriffe, UARR,

Date modified: