Broadcasting - Secretary General Letter addressed to John Carlo Mastrangelo (Lax O’Sullivan Lisus Gottlieb LLP)
Ottawa, 26 July 2024
Reference: 2024-0069-6
BY E-MAIL
John Carlo Mastrangelo
Lawyer
Lax O’Sullivan Lisus Gottlieb LLP
Suite 2750, 145 King St W
Toronto, Ontario, M5H 1J8
jmastrangelo@lolg.ca
Subject: Denial of procedural requests relating to Part 1 application 2024-0069-6
Dear John Carlo Mastrangelo,
Thank you for the Part 1 application that you filed on behalf of David Lepofsky in regard to certain broadcasting services provided by Bell Canada and Bell Media Inc. (collectively, Bell).
The Commission acknowledges that the application raises matters of significant interest to Canadians who are blind or partially sighted. The Commission has not yet completed its analysis of the record of this proceeding and will address the issues related to the accessibility of Bell’s broadcasting services after fully assessing the record. A decision on these issues will be published at that point.
This letter addresses David Lepofsky’s two procedural requests, specifically, the additional procedures that he requested in the application and the request for information (RFI) that he proposed in a letter dated 31 May 2024.
The Commission understands that David Lepofsky had initially submitted a similar complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) in 2021 and that the CHRC determined in 2023 that the Commission was the appropriate forum to address that complaint. That determination triggered the filing of this application.
The Commission appreciates that David Lepofsky has requested procedures modelled after proceedings before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, for reasons set out in his requests. However, the Commission is an independent administrative tribunal with well-established processes set out in the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Rules are designed to ensure the Commission has the records it needs to make decisions on issues before it. For Part 1 applications, the Commission typically builds written records. Written proceedings have proved effective in many contexts, notably including proceedings addressing consumer and accessibility issues.
In this case, the application sets out the allegations in detail, the respondent provided its answer, several interveners added comments on the record, and the applicant replied. Additional information was added in response to a Commission staff RFI to the respondent. All parties had the opportunity to comment on the RFI responses and Bell to reply.
The Commission recognizes the importance of the issues raised in the application, but it is of the view that parties received the information they needed and had a full chance to present their positions. The Commission has the information it needs to make informed decisions on these issues.
Accordingly, the Commission denies the applicant’s request for additional procedures and an additional RFI.
Yours sincerely,
Original signed by
Marc Morin
Secretary General
cc:
Valérie Dionne, valerie.dionne@crtc.gc.ca
Nanao Kachi, nanao.kachi@crtc.gc.ca
Michael Ostroff, michael.ostroff@crtc.gc.ca
Leah Paolini, leah.paolini@crtc.gc.ca
- Date modified: