Telecom - Secretary General Letter addressed to Benjamin LaHaise (Community Fibre Company)
Gatineau, 15 May 2026
BY EMAIL
Benjamin LaHaise, President
Community Fibre Company
1167 Sixth Concession A Dalhousie
Lanark, Ontario K0G 1K0
Ben@communityfibre.ca
Subject: Application by the Community Fibre Company to Review and Vary Telecom Decision 2025-239
Dear Benjamin LaHaise,
We are writing to inform you of the Commission’s decision regarding the Community Fibre Company’s (CFC) application (the Application) submitted on 12 December 2025. The Application asked the Commission to review and vary Bell Canada – Application to review and vary Telecom Decisions 2021-131 and 2022-160, Telecom Decision CRTC 2025-239, 12 September 2025 (TD 2025-239).
While the Commission has the power to vary a decision if there is substantial doubt as to its correctness, the Commission has decided that it will not examine the Application. As explained below, the Commission is of the view that CFC has not raised sufficient grounds for the Commission to consider a review and variance of TD 2025-239.
By way of background, in Videotron Ltd. – Application concerning the issuance of orders related to the processing and granting by Bell Canada of access permit applications for support structures, Telecom Decision CRTC 2021-131, 16 April 2021 (TD 2021-131), the Commission found that Bell Canada (Bell) had violated the Telecommunications Act in relation to a support structure dispute with Videotron Ltd. The Commission subsequently initiated another proceeding and, in Imposition of an administrative monetary penalty on Bell Canada in relation to the processing and granting of access permit applications for support structures in accordance with its National Services Tariff, Telecom Decision CRTC 2022-160, 15 June 2022 (TD 2022-160), imposed an administrative monetary penalty (AMP) on Bell. Bell then applied to vary that decision, and in TD 2025-239, the Commission declined to do so.
In the Application, CFC claims that, in TD 2025-239, the Commission should have acted on the information that CFC provided on the record in the two previous proceedings. CFC also submits that the Commission should address an alleged ongoing undue preference affecting CFC that was raised in those previous proceedings.
Although CFC did participate in the proceedings that led to TD 2021-131 and TD 2022-160, it did not participate in the proceeding that led to TD 2025-239. While the Commission considered CFC’s submissions in the two previous proceedings, it had no obligation to extend its orders to CFC, nor to add CFC to the proceeding that led to TD 2025-239.
Finally, the Commission is of the view that the errors claimed by CFC in the Application are not related to the subject matter of TD 2025-239. That decision addressed Bell’s request to vary or rescind the imposition of an AMP. In TD 2025-239, the Commission considered the errors alleged by Bell and maintained the AMP that it imposed in TD 2022-160.
While the Commission will not further consider the Application, it notes that CFC has filed a separate application before it, which claims undue discrimination against CFC by Bell. That application remains under consideration by the Commission, and a determination will be issued in due course.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Noah Moser, Director General, Telecommunications, at Noah.Moser@crtc.gc.ca.
Sincerely,
Marc Morin
Secretary General and Executive Vice-President
CC:
Chantal Gingras, Ginsberg, Gingras & Associates, ChantalGingras@ginsberg-gingras.com
Bell Canada, bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Leila Wright, Vice-President, Telecommunications, CRTC, Leila.Wright@crtc.gc.ca
Noah Moser, Director General, Telecommunications, CRTC, Noah.Moser@crtc.gc.ca
Suneil Kanjeekal, Director, Telecommunications, CRTC Suneil.Kanjeekal@crtc.gc.ca
Crystal Hulley-Craig, Senior Counsel, Telecommunications, CRTC, Crystal.Hulley-Craig@crtc.gc.ca
- Date modified: