[2013] 2 F.C.R. D-10
Telecommunications
Appeal from Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decision (Telecom Order CRTC 2012-151) approving various agreements under Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, s. 29 between Northwestel Inc, three other respondents (Bell Canada, Rogers Cable Communications Inc, Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel))—CRTC holding that agreements for approval to be considered under Act, s. 29, not s. 25; that amounts to be paid by companies to Northwestel would remain confidential; that since respondent Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc. (Primus) not carrier, agreement between Northwestel, Primus not subject to Act, s. 29—Appellant arguing that approval of agreements under Act, s. 29 not exempting Northwestel from requirements of s. 25, that amounts to be paid by Bell, Rogers, SaskTel having to be included in tariff that is filed thereunder—Amounts under agreements between Northwestel, Bell, Rogers, SaskTel would only be paid once calls made; agreements simply apportioning revenue that would be generated when such calls made—Object of Act, intention of Parliament would not be fulfilled if both ss. 25, 29 would apply to amounts to be paid under agreements; would result in requirement that Northwestel obtain two approvals of amounts under agreements at issue—In approving agreements at issue under Act, s. 29, CRTC approving amounts each company would be paying to Northwestel—Would not be reasonable interpretation of Act to require CRTC to again approve same amounts under Act, s. 25—Act, s. 7(f) supporting interpretation; requiring Northwestel to obtain two approvals not resulting in efficient, effective regulation—Appellant’s argument Act, s. 25 only requiring that amounts be filed, not approved rejected since s. 25 cannot be separated into two parts—Both filing, approval requirements included in Act, s. 25; not possible to split s. 25 into two parts especially since s. 26, providing that approval process must follow filing, would reintroduce approval requirement—Therefore, no basis on which to interfere with CRTC’s decision in relation to agreements between Northwestel, Bell, Rogers, SaskTel; CRTC should be afforded deference in determining whether ss. 25, 29 applying in any particular situation—With respect to agreement between Northwestel, Primus (reseller not carrier), CRTC not addressing whether Act, s. 25 would apply in relation to amounts that would be paid by Primus under agreement with Northwestel—Thus, matter referred back to CRTC to make such determination—Appeal dismissed.
TELUS Communications Company v. Northwestel Inc. (A-309-12, 2013 FCA 44, Webb J.A., judgment dated February 15, 2013, 13 pp.)