Telecom Commission Letter addressed to Michel Cantin (Bélanger Sauvé Avocats LLP) and Mr. Mathieu Quenneville (Prévost Fortin D’Aoust avocats)
Ottawa, 31 August 2017
Our reference: 8662-Q15-201705097 and 8690-V81-201703231
Mr. Michel Cantin
Bélanger Sauvé avocats LLP
Representative, City of Gatineau
5 Place Ville Marie, suite 900
Montreal, Quebec H8B 2G2
Mr. Mathieu Quenneville
Prévost Fortin D’Aoust avocats
Representative of the Carriers
20845 chemin de la Côte du Nord, suite 500
Boisbriand, Quebec J7E 4H5
Subject: City of Gatineau – Municipal Access Agreement and Application to review and vary a procedural decision made by the Commission on 30 May 2017 denying an application for a stay filed by the Carriers – Staff Letter
On 13 April 2017, the Commission received the above-mentioned application under Part I from the City of Gatineau (Gatineau) for approval of a proposed Municipal Access Agreement (MAA).
On 30 May 2017, the Commission denied, by means of a letter, a request for a stay or deferral filed by Bell Canada, Vidéotron G.P., Rogers Communications G.P., Telus Communications and Cogeco Cable Inc. (collectively the Carriers) pending the ruling of the Superior Court of Quebec on the constitutionality of Gatineau Municipal By-Laws governing all activities on Gatineau-owned property by telecommunications companies. In the letter, the Commission also set new deadlines for the filing of comments and replies with respect to the application, which had been placed on hold pending the Commission’s decision on the request for a stay or deferral, until 16 and 27 June 2017.
On 16 June 2017, in lieu of comments, the Carriers filed an application with the Commission to review and vary its decision of 30 May 2017. The Carriers indicate in the application that this decision should be reviewed and varied to postpone the Commission’s examination of the application under Part I pending the decision of the Court.
On 2 August 2017, the Superior Court of Quebec rendered its decision in the litigation opposing Gatineau and the Carriers. Consequently, Commission staff now considers that the request by the Carriers to stay and vary the decision is now moot.
Commission staff is therefore asking the parties to indicate by 11 September 2017 whether, in light of the changed circumstances further to the Court decision, the parties intend to resume negotiations to reach a negotiated MAA or whether they would prefer reinitiating the Part I application process.
Original signed by
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
c.c.: Josiane Lord, CRTC, firstname.lastname@example.org
Bell Canada, email@example.com
Rogers Communications, firstname.lastname@example.org
TELUS Communications, email@example.com
- Date modified: