Telecom - Procedural letter addressed to the Distribution List
Ottawa, 15 September 2020
Our reference: 8662-J64-202005595
RE: Iristel Inc. – Application to Stay Telecom Decision CRTC 2020-268 & Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2020-269
On 14 August 2020, the Commission issued Telecom Decision CRTC 2020-268Footnote1 in which, among other things, it modified Iristel Inc.’s (Iristel) interim long distance call (IX) termination rate and determined that the interim rate will be made final if Iristel does not file, by 16 November 2020, a tariff notice supported by a cost study consistent with the information to be provided in support of wholesale service tariff applications.
On 2 September 2020, Iristel, on behalf of itself and its affiliates Ice Wireless Inc. and Iris Technologies Inc., submitted an application pursuant to section 62 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) requesting that the Commission review, vary, rescind, and stay certain aspects of Telecom Decision CRTC 2020-268 and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2020-269Footnote2.
This letter addresses Iristel’s request regarding a stay of the modification of its tariffed rate in Telecom Decision CRTC 2020-268. The Commission has issued Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2020-269-1Footnote3 to adjourn that proceeding, making the request to stay that proceeding moot.
Iristel considered that the Commission made fundamental errors of fact and law in Telecom Decision CRTC 2020-268 and failed to consider basic principles raised in the original proceeding, the combined effect of which justify the relief requested by Iristel. Due to the impending deadline to file a tariff notice supported by a cost study, Iristel requested that the Commission issue, on an expedited basis, a stay of the modification of its tariffed rate on Telecom Decision CRTC 2020-268.
Before granting a stay of a decision, the Commission has required the party requesting the stay to demonstrate that it meets the criteria set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd.  1 S.C.R. 110, as modified by the Court's decision in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)  1 S.C.R. 311 (the RJR-MacDonald criteria).
In its application seeking a stay of Telecom Decision CRTC 2020-268, Iristel addressed the RJR-MacDonald criteria. In the alternative, Iristel argued that if the Commission finds that Iristel does not meet the irreparable harm component of the RJR-MacDonald test, the significant public interest at stake justifies using the modified test for a stay from the Speed Cap DecisionFootnote4.
By separate letters dated 3 September 2020, Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. supported Iristel’s request to stay, on an expedited basis, Telecom Decision CRTC 2020-268, and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre noted that while Iristel’s application requests expedited relief for a stay of Telecom Decision 2020-268, there is no suggested return dates provided.
Given that Iristel would require sufficient time in advance to prepare an appropriate cost study and file a tariff notice by 16 November 2020 and the Commission’s determination on the review and vary application could impact Telecom Decision CRTC 2020-268, Commission staff considers it appropriate to treat Iristel’s stay request on an expedited basis.
Accordingly, interested parties may file interventions on Iristel’s request for a stay of certain aspects of Telecom Decision CRTC 2020-268 by 21 September 2020, serving a copy on Iristel. Iristel may file a reply by 24 September 2020, serving a copy on those parties that filed interventions.
In order to build a more complete record for the expedited proceeding, Commission staff is seeking comments on whether: (i) Iristel meets the RJR Macdonald criteria; (ii) the Commission should use the modified test for a stay from the Speed Cap Decision, if it finds that Iristel fails the irreparable harm component of the RJR Macdonald criteria; and (iii) the Commission should extend the 16 November 2020 deadline, pursuant to section 50 of the ActFootnote5, even if it denies Iristel’s stay request.
Original signed by
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
c.c.: Tacit Law Regulatory, email@example.com
TELUS Communications Inc., Regulatory.Affairs@TELUS.COM;
Public Interest Advocacy Centre, firstname.lastname@example.org;
Rogers Communications Canada Inc., email@example.com;
Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org;
Marc Lange, email@example.com;
- Date modified: