Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to Stéphane Émard-Chabot (Sicotte Guibault) and Pamela Dinsmore (Rogers Communications Canada Inc.)
Ottawa, 28 August 2024
Reference: 8690-R28-202404201
BY EMAIL
Stéphane Émard-Chabot, Lawyer
Sicotte Guibault
5925 Jeanne D’Arc Blvd
Orleans, ON K1C 6V8
semard-chabot@sicotte.ca
Pamela Dinsmore
Vice-President, Regulatory-Cable
Rogers Communications Canada Inc.
350 Bloor Street East,
Toronto, ON M4W 1G9
pam.dinsmore@rci.rogers.com
Subject: Procedural Request relating to the Part 1 application filed by Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers) for reasonable terms of access to highways and other public places in the City of Ottawa
Dear Stéphane Émard-Chabot and Pamela Dinsmore:
In a letter dated 21 August 2024, the City of Ottawa (Ottawa) requested the Commission to implement a modified process for the proceeding that either follows or is based on the following suggestion:
- Confirmation by Ottawa of the issues: 3 September 2024;
- Ottawa’s filing of its answer: 1 November 2024 (extended from 3 September 2024);
- Rogers’ reply comments: 29 November 2024;
- Interventions by all third parties: 27 December 2024;
- Responses to interventions and final submissions by Rogers and the City of Ottawa: 31 January 2025.
Ottawa’s grounds for requesting a modified process are:
- The number of issues raised by Rogers;
- The complexity of the issues from a technical, legal, and policy perspective; and,
- The fact that third parties—including provincial Attorneys General, rail authorities, public agencies that provide broadband funding, and hydro utilities—and the municipal sector as a whole have an important stake in the matters that will be considered.
Ottawa requested that, in the event the Commission disagrees that a more comprehensive process as it proposes is warranted, the 3 September 2024 deadline to file its answer be extended to 1 November 2024. Ottawa’s grounds for suggesting its alternative procedural modification is the time required to compile data to assist the Commission in its consideration of a number of the technical and cost sharing issues raised by Rogers.
By letter dated 27 August 2024, Rogers objected to the procedural changes requested by the City of Ottawa, arguing that they amount to creating Notice of Consultation through a Part 1 Process. Also, the City of Mississauga wrote in support of Ottawa’s request.
Given the complexity of the procedural request and Rogers’ objections, it is unlikely that the Commission could analyze the requests before the intervention deadline of 3 September 2024 for this application. Commission staff also recognizes that there may be larger issues to be addressed by the Commission than those presented by Rogers in its application. Accordingly, it is necessary for Rogers and any other interested person to be accorded an opportunity to comment on Ottawa’s suggested modified process, as well as what they consider to be the issues at hand.
Therefore, as an interim measure the deadlines associated with the above-referenced application are modified as follows:
- Ottawa’s answer/Interventions by interested persons: 1 November 2024;
- Rogers’ reply comments : 21 November 2024.
All interested persons should address in their submissions both the procedural and substantive issues raised in by Ottawa in its procedural request, as well as the substantive issues raised in Rogers’ application (should the request for further procedure be denied).
In closing, staff will address separately Ottawa’s request that Rogers disclose on the record of the proceeding a copy of its draft municipal access agreement (MAA) with Ottawa.
Sincerely,
Original signed by Philippe Nadeau for
Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector
c.c:
Rob MacLachlan, City of Ottawa, rob.maclachlan@ottawa.ca
Maurizio Artale, City of Mississauga, maurizio.artale@mississauga.ca
Rudy Rab, CRTC, rudy.rab@crtc.gc.ca
- Date modified: