By Ahmad Hathout
Iristel is asking cabinet to force the CRTC to revisit a complaint that alleges Bell and its subsidiary Northwestel violated aspects of a wholesale call traffic agreement.
The far north provider is only asking cabinet to instruct the CRTC to make “full use of its investigative powers” to decide on a matter it has already adjudicated twice – against Iristel.
The issue first emerged in 2023, when Iristel filed a Part 1 to the CRTC claiming that Bell had effectively reneged on its agreement to provide a convenient call traffic point of interconnection (POI) at Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec and Whitehorse. Iristel said from 2015, it had reluctantly agreed to an interim arrangement in which it would route traffic to Kuujjuaq through a single exchange in Montreal. Iristel alleges, after repeated requests and denials, that it was finally offered the alternate local POIs in Whitehorse and Yellowknife in 2023 — four years after it was informed that Northwestel was relocating the original POI; one year after it started withholding payments for Bell/Northwestel services in 2022; and after it said it had suffered financial and reputational damages.
Despite that, in July 2024, the CRTC found that Iristel failed to provide sufficient evidence that it was wronged in the dispute and ordered it to pay amounts it withheld from Bell in protest. Iristel, which said the lack of the original promised interconnection point meant a reduction in capacity to carry its traffic, then filed a review and vary of that decision, alleging the regulator failed to fully investigate the matter. It had asked the commission to order requests for information for Bell to provide statements from specific employees, including past ones, who participated in meetings where the alleged refusals to set up the requested interconnection points were made.
Had the CRTC committed to said investigation, including appointing an inquiry officer like it was asked, Iristel claims the regulator would have discovered that it had badgered Bell and Northwestel about the interconnection points but was refused.
The CRTC, by majority decision, disagreed. In June this year, it denied Iristel’s review and vary application, again finding that the far north service provider failed to show sufficient evidence that it was wronged.
In its cabinet petition, dated September but made public this month, Iristel says a dissenting opinion of Commissioner Claire Anderson and a concurring opinion of Commissioner Bram Abramson point to the CRTC’s shortcomings in the decision.
“The Commission committed errors both in fact and in law in [the decision], which raises substantial doubt as to the correctness and the reasonableness of that decision,” Anderson, the regulator’s commissioner for British Columbia and Yukon, said her dissenting opinion. “I would approve Iristel’s application to review and vary the decision and conclude there is sufficient evidence on the record to warrant further investigation by the Commission, through RFIs at a minimum, into the allegations of tariff violations and unfair discrimination.”
Anderson pointed to submissions to the Yukon Supreme Court, where Iristel filed a statement of claim on the matter, that backed the service provider’s grievances.
“Our error was compounded by our lack of exercising any regulatory powers, like the issuance of requests for information (RFIs), if we had evidentiary concerns that needed to be addressed,” Anderson added.
While Abramson agreed with the CRTC’s decision, he criticized the approach in getting there. “If timely performance of tariffs matters, as it must if our supervisory framework is to inspire confidence; and if, as a corollary, getting to the bottom of breaches in performance must matter, too … then good-faith RFIs that do not abuse process but do help get to the bottom of things are fundamental,” he said. “Indeed, to the extent that it is helpful in resolving the complex disputes that stakeholders expect us to be able to wrangle effectively, some reflection on how to innovate on the process, such as the possibility of transcribed oral RFIs, may be warranted.”
Despite saying it does not fully understanding why Abramson ended up concurring with the majority, it concurs with the sentiments expressed in the two opinions.
“It has been Iristel’s long-standing contention that it has been placed at an undue disadvantage in its ability to prove its case against Bell Canada and Northwestel because of an informational asymmetry in terms of the evidence in the possession of the respective parties,” Iristel says in its petition to cabinet.
“Informational asymmetry between parties reduces the Commission’s ability to regulate effectively because if a single party is in possession of evidence, and the Commission does not exercise its powers to obtain that evidence, the Commission is basing its decisions on an incomplete understanding of the situation,” it adds.
Iristel also says it agrees with Abramson’s suggestion that the commission should consider using transcribed oral RFIs.
