Bell, Northwestel tell CRTC to leave billing dispute with Iristel in hands of the court

BCE Inc.’s Bell Canada and Northwestel have responded to Iristel Inc.'s application to suspend disconnection notices sent by the incumbents in a dispute over unpaid bills. The two Bell properties told the CRTC in separate Oct. 27 filings that the matter is best left in the hands of the court, and that Iristel's application is without merit. In both cases involving Bell and Northwestel, Iristel initiated legal action against the incumbent carriers due to disputes over network upgrades and interconnections. In response, Bell issued disconnection orders. Iristel then filed complaints with the CRTC, leading to an expedited process, and temporary agreements were reached until the CRTC makes its final decision. Both Bell and Northwestel argue that they are already part of an ongoing court proceeding in Yukon (against Northwestel) and in Quebec (against Bell). Iristel alleges that Bell issued a disconnection notice in retaliation for the court proceedings, which Bell denies and states that it was properly issued due to the unpaid accounts. Bell added that this places the disconnection notice under the jurisdiction of the Quebec Court Proceedings and should have been raised there. Iristel's central request to the CRTC is an interlocutory injunction requiring Bell to withdraw the disconnection notice and continue providing service until one of three conditions is met: the CRTC disposes of the application on its merits, the Quebec Court Proceeding concludes, or the requested investigation is complete. Bell disputes the legal grounds for this injunction and claims that the CRTC lacks jurisdiction to grant it. Furthermore, Bell argues, the first timeframe, based on the commission ruling on the application, is seen as a jurisdictional conflict, as the substance of the application is already being considered in a separate court proceeding. The second timeframe, lasting until the court proceeding concludes, is deemed inappropriate as it ties the CRTC's actions to a third-party proceeding over which it has no control. The third timeframe, linked to the requested investigation, is vague and unreasonably extensive inquiry. “Iristel has framed its proposed investigation so broadly as to be effectively an examination of the entirety of our business in the past, present, and indefinite future. On its face, this is plainly unreasonable and would take a long time and significant Commission resources,” Bell wrote to the commission. Northwestel brought up similar arguments and further noted that Iristel acknowledged the commission's lack of jurisdiction when it stated to the court that: "Iristel understands that matters brought before the Supreme Court of Yukon are not within jurisdiction of the commission and is not asking the commission to rule on the issue of damages that is already before the courts." Yet, despite this acknowledgement, Iristel still repeats the same issues as in the Yukon court proceeding and asks the commission to rule on their substance, Northwestel argued. Iristel's primary claim against Northwestel revolves around the alleged refusal to provide signaling interconnection points (SPOIs) for CCS7 interconnection in Whitehorse and Yellowknife. Northwestel denied these allegations and contends that they worked with Iristel to find a technical solution and received approval from the CRTC for tariff modifications to implement its solution. As of May, SPOIs for CCS7 interconnection in Whitehorse were made available to Iristel, according to Northwestel. Northwestel refuted the assertion that the SPOI location negatively impacted Iristel's business, arguing the issue is irrelevant to Iristel's non-payment of tariffed services. Northwestel argues that Iristel fails to meet the criteria set by the Supreme Court of Canada for an interlocutory injunction. Northwestel states that Iristel does not have a strong prima facie case for its claims, arguing that Iristel cannot prove its non-payment is valid under the applicable tariffs or agreements. “Iristel's rationale for non-payment is not valid under the applicable tariffs or agreements and is expressly barred by section 14(b) of the . Thus Iristel cannot succeed in proving that it does not owe the amounts claimed.” Finally, Northwestel and Bell contend that Iristel's requested relief will “provide services to Iristel indefinitely, without payment,” which is inconsistent with the Telecommunications Act's objectives and the 2023 Policy Direction. They argue that this request does not facilitate the orderly development of the telecom system, enhance competitiveness, rely on market forces, or stimulate innovation. – Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Paul Park at ppark@thewirereport.ca

Bell, Northwestel tell CRTC to leave billing dispute with Iristel in hands of the court

News | October 30, 2023

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Bell, Northwestel tell CRTC to leave billing dispute with Iristel in hands of the court

News | October 30, 2023

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telus’ arguments for incumbent access to wholesale regime not supported by competitors

Bell won’t participate in subsidized broadband projects if wholesale access for Big Three continues, signs agreement with CNOC

Rogers’ purchase of Bell’s MLSE stake not being challenged by Competition Bureau ‘at this time’

Telecom industry players look to Senate for greater copper theft prevention

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us