Search

Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to Jean-François Dumoulin (Iristel, Inc.)

Ottawa, 2 February 2023

Our reference: 1011-NOC2020-0269-2

BY EMAIL

Jean-François Dumoulin
Vice-President, Regulatory and Government Affairs
Iristel, Inc.
16766 Trans-Canada Hwy., Suite 403
Kirkland, Quebec, H9H 4M7
regulatory@iristel.com

Subject: Request for information in relation to Call for comments – Imposition of administrative monetary penalties on Iristel Inc. and TELUS Communications Inc. in relation to the routing and termination of phone calls to the 867 area code in Northern Canada

On 14 August 2020, the Commission issued Telecom Decision (TD) 2020-268, in which it concluded that both Iristel Inc. (Iristel) and TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) had violated subsection 27(2) of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) in relation to routing and terminating phone calls to the 867 area code in Northern Canada. That same day, the Commission issued Telecom Notice of Consultation (NOC) 2020-269 in which it initiated a proceeding to determine whether it would be appropriate to impose administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) on Iristel and TCI and, if so, in what amounts (the proceeding).

However, on 11 September 2020, in NOC 2020-269-1, the Commission adjourned the proceeding, in response to Iristel’s application to review and vary TD 2020-268. On 1 December 2021, the Commission subsequently resumed the proceeding, pursuant to NOC 2020-269-2.

Paragraph 28(1)(a)of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that the Commission may request parties to file information or documents where needed. Section 37 of the Act also empowers the Commission to request information from Canadian carriers.

Iristel is requested to provide the documents and information requested in the attachment below by 13 February 2023.

Parties to the proceeding and any interested persons may file an intervention on any new information provided by Iristel in its response to the Commission by 20 February 2023. Iristel may file reply comments by 27 February 2023.

As set out in section 39 of the Act, and in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961, Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, persons may designate certain information as confidential. A detailed explanation on why the designated information is confidential and why its disclosure would not be in the public interest must be provided, including why the specific direct harm that would be likely to result from the disclosure would outweigh the public interest in disclosure. In addition to the confidential version, an abridged version of the document omitting only the confidential information must be filed or reasons why an abridged version cannot be filed must be provided.

Attach. (1)

Request for information

  1. Provide a full explanation of the nature of the relationship, if any, between CloudNCode Inc. (an intervener in NOC 2020-269) and its ownership or directors and Iristel. Comment on appropriateness of considering evidence of a relationship between CloudNCode and Iristel when assessing CloudNCode Inc.’s intervention as part of the record of NOC 2020-269.
  2. Advise whether, at any time during the course of the proceedings associated with Telecom Decision 2017-456, Telecom Decision 2020-268, Telecom Decision CRTC 2021-397, and NOC 2020-269, Iristel entered into any arrangement with any other carrier(s), whereby the carrier(s) agreed not to intervene, or to intervene, in any of these CRTC proceedings. In case Iristel entered into any arrangement(s), provide full details regarding the terms of the arrangement(s), including the names of the carrier(s) involved and any consideration on the part of Iristel. Comment on the appropriateness of considering the existence of any such arrangements when assessing the record of NOC 2020-269.
  3. Confirm whether Iristel is required to pay fees under the Telecommunications Fees Regulations, 2010, and report any outstanding fees.
  4. In case of any outstanding fees under the Telecommunications Fees Regulations, 2010, comment on whether the Commission should consider any outstanding fees as a factor to determine the amount of a potential AMP to be imposed on Iristel as an outcome of NOC 2020-269. In particular, comment on the appropriateness of considering this information when assessing paragraphs 72.002(1)(b) of the Act (the history of compliance with the Act, the regulations or the decisions made by the Commission under the Act, by the person who committed the violation) or 72.002(1)(f) of the Act(any other relevant factor).
  5. In Telecom Decision CRTC 2017-57, the Commission denied an application by Ice Wireless Inc. (Ice Wireless) for relief against Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (RCCI) regarding roaming on RCCI’s network by customers of Ice Wireless and Sugar Mobile Inc. (Sugar Mobile). In that decision, the Commission found that Ice Wireless had improperly allowed the end-users of its mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) Sugar Mobile to obtain permanent, rather than incidental, access to RCCI’s cellular network. Explain fully:
    1. What has been the nature of the relationship between Iristel, Ice Wireless, and Sugar Mobile, from January 2017 to the date of this letter.
    2. Whether the Commission should consider the finding that Ice Wireless had improperly allowed the end-users of its MVNO Sugar Mobile to obtain permanent, rather than incidental, access to RCCI’s cellular network as a factor to determine the amount of a potential AMP to be imposed on Iristel as an outcome of NOC 2020-269; in particular, as evidence under paragraphs 72.002(1)(b) or 72.002(1)(f) of the Telecommunications Act.
  6. In order to allow the Commission to assess Iristel’s ability to pay a potential AMP to be imposed as an outcome of NOC 2020-269, provide:
    1. Iristel’s audited financial statements for each of its previous four fiscal years (i.e. 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021) or, if unavailable, unaudited financial statements for the same period of time, signed by an accountant or a senior officer of the organization attesting to the accuracy of the statements.
    2. Income tax records relating to Iristel, including all income tax filings and information slips, for taxation years 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021.Footnote1

In both of the above cases, comment on the appropriateness of assessing the requested information as evidence under paragraph 72.002(1)(d) of the Act(i.e. a person’s ability to pay the penalty).

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.:

David Peaker, TELUS Communications Inc., david.peaker@telus.com;
John Lawford, Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), jlawford@piac.ca;
Greg Abrams, CloudNcode Inc., abrams@bellaliant.net;
Brandon Bacchus, Brandonbacchus@gmail.com;
Brian Beal, bealio4444@gmail.com;
David Beaugie, notgone60@gmail.com
Brian Capodagli, bcapodagli@persona.ca;
Doug Connolly, dougrconnolly@gmail.com;
Jeffery Cox, jceofx@gmail.com;
Greg Derkacz, jametkirk@gmail.com;
Robert Evans, rob.evans99@gmail.com;
Stu Gibson, Sgibson@theedge.ca;
Jim Hauck, jhauck007@gmail.com;
Steve Kozak, steved.koz@gmail.com;
Heath Lansdowne, Wilderness.b@gmail.com;
K. D. MacDonald, mackie4457@gmail.com;
Corey McCowan, corey.mccowan@outlook.com;
Sarah Overington, spinningsarahyukon@gmail.com;
Theo Polgieter, theodorejpot@gmail.com;
Richard Thompson, Northern Vision Development LP, rich.thompson@zginc.ca
Karl Weimar, kfg.weimar@gmail.com;
Rudy Rab, CRTC, rudy.rab@crtc.gc.ca

Date modified: