ARCHIVED - Telecom Procedural Letter Addressed to Various Parties

This page has been archived on the Web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, 2 August 2019

Our reference: 8622-N68-201904649


Mr. Bud Eaton
Vice-President Development
Marcon Developments Ltd.
5645 – 199th Street
Langley, BC  V3A 1H9

Ms. Donna Robertson
Co-President, Chief Legal Officer
Novus Entertainment Inc.
#300 – 112 East 3rd Avenue
Vancouver, BC  V5T 1C8

RE: Application filed by Novus Entertainment Inc. (Novus) for non-discriminatory and timely access on reasonable terms and conditions to the multi-dwelling unit (MDU) 567 Clarke + Como Development and future MDU developments of Marcon Developments Ltd. and its related companies (Marcon)

Dear Mr. Eaton and Ms. Robertson:

In response to a Commission staff letter dated 24 July 2019 and addressed to Marcon, the Commission received on 25 July 2019 an e-mail from Marcon’s legal counsel, requesting a 90 day extension to the 29 July 2019 deadline set by staff for receipt from Marcon of either:

  1. A confirmation that Marcon has no response to submit to the Commission regarding the above-referenced application; or
  2. A response to the Commission in answer to Novus’ application which otherwise conforms to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules of Practice and Procedure).

In a staff letter dated 26 July 2019, staff informed Marcon and Novus that, in light of Marcon’s request for an extension, staff had rescinded the 29 July 2019 deadline for Marcon to file with the Commission an answer to Novus’ application. Staff also expressed its preliminary view that an extension of the deadline for receipt of Marcon’s answer to 29 August 2019 would be appropriate. Staff also invited written comments, including detailed rationale, from the parties by no later than 31 July 2019 on whether:

  1. An extension was appropriate;
  2. Staff’s preliminary date was appropriate; or,
  3. Some other date was appropriate.

On 29 July 2019 the Commission received a letter from Novus, submitting that it agreed that an extension was appropriate and that, as such, it agreed with staff’s suggested new deadline date of 29 August 2019 for Marcon to respond to Novus’ application.

On 31 July 2019, the Commission received a letter from Marcon’s legal counsel (Lawson Lundell, LLP), informing that Marcon seeks a 60-day extension to the 29 July 2019 deadline specified in the 24 July 2019 Commission staff letter to provide its answer to Novus’ application, for the following reasons:

Commission staff is of the view that granting Marcon’s request for a 60-day extension to the 29 July 2019 deadline would benefit the proceeding by enabling the Commission to gain a more fulsome record. As well, Commission staff is of the view that the length of Marcon’s requested extension will not impair Novus’ ability to access the MDU in a timely manner to install its facilities, should the Commission approve the relief requested by Novus. Having regard to all the above, Commission staff is of the view that granting Marcon’s deadline extension request is reasonable, and would be in the public interest.

Therefore, the deadlines associated with Novus’ application are modified as follows:

Staff also advises the parties that, as detailed in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2019-184 (the Bulletin), various processes are available to them by the Commission (as an alternative to a Part 1 proceeding) for resolving bilateral broadcasting and telecom-related disputes. However, parties may always resolve their differences through third-party mediation or arbitration, bilateral negotiations, or other means that do not involve Commission participation. Commission staff expects parties to continue negotiating in order to achieve a mutually-beneficial result.


Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.: Peter Roberts, Lawson Lundell LLP,
Chad Travis, Lawson Lundell LLP,
Rudy Rab, CRTC,
Marcon Developments Ltd.

Date modified: