Telecom - Procedural Letter addressed to Suzanne Lamarre (Therrien Couture Joli-Coeur L.L.P.), Stephen Schmidt (TELUS Communications Inc.)

Ottawa, 8 June 2022

Our reference: 8633-T66-202201755


Suzanne Lamarre
Therrien Couture Joli-Coeur L.L.P.

Stephen Schmidt
Vice President – Telecom Policy & Chief Regulatory Legal Counsel
TELUS Communications Inc.

Subject: TELUS Part 1 Application for reclassification of SILECs as ONPs for the purposes of NG9-1-1

The present is in response to a 2 June 2022 letter filed by TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS). By way of background, on 24 May 2022, Therrien Couture Joli-Coeur, L.L.P., counsel for the Independent Telecommunications Providers Association (ITPA), requested that the Commission summarily dismiss an application filed by TELUS.Footnote1 In response to this request, Commission staff issued a letter, dated 30 May 2022, in which it suspended all outstanding timelines associated with TELUS’ application and established procedure to deal with the ITPA’s request.

In its 2 June 2022 letter, TELUS argued that the deadline for its answer to the ITPA request should be extended by reason of the fact that it had not been properly served with Commission staff’s 30 May 2022 letter. Commission staff acknowledges that it made use of an incorrect email address when attempting to serve TELUS with the relevant letter and therefore considers that it would be appropriate to extend TELUS’ deadline to file an answer to the ITPA’s request to 10 June 2022. In light of this, Commission staff also extends the deadline for ITPA to file a reply to 17 June 22.

In its 2 June 2022 letter, TELUS also took issue with the fact that under the procedures set out in Commission staff’s 30 May 2022, all process associated with ITPA’s request would end with the filing of the ITPA’s reply. TELUS submitted that it should be afforded the right to reply to all submissions made given that it is the applicant and that a failure to provide it with such an opportunity would fail to meet the requirements of procedural fairness. In this regard, TELUS pointed to Rules 27 of the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure(CRTC Rules).Footnote2

While TELUS’ position is premised on its understanding of the ITPA’s request as constituting an answer to its application, Commission staff considers that the ITPA’s request is akin to a motion for summary dismissal. The CRTC Rules do not contain specific rules for dealing with such matters. However, s.5(2) of the CRTC Rules provides that where a matter of procedure is not provided for in its Rules, the Commission may provide for such matter by reference to, amongst others, the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106. In staff’s view, the Federal Court rule most relevant to the present is rule 369. Pursuant to this rule, it is the moving party, here the ITPA, which is provided the right of reply.

While Commission staff acknowledges that the CRTC Rules provide TELUS with the right to reply to answers and interventions made on the substance of its application, it considers that TELUS is properly viewed as the respondent to the ITPA’s procedural request and, therefore, that it is appropriate for the ITPA to be granted a right of reply to any answer provided to its request.


Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution & Regulatory Implementations
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.:   Étienne Robelin, CRTC,
Independent Telecommunications Providers Association
Parties to the TELUS Part 1 application

Date modified: