Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to Philippe Gauvin (Bell Canada) and Benjamin LaHaise (Community Fibre Company Inc.)
Gatineau, 19 December 2025
Our reference: 8000-C12-202505719
BY EMAIL
Philippe Gauvin
Assistant General Counsel
Bell Canada
Floor 19
160 Elgin St.
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2C4
bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Benjamin LaHaise
President
Community Fibre Company Inc.
1167 Sixth Concession A Dalhousie
Lanark, ON K0G 1K0
ben@communityfibre.ca
Subject: Community Fibre Company letter requesting orders for interim and targeted final relief on an expedited basis regarding disconnection of its telecommunication facilities
Dear Philippe Gauvin and Benjamin LaHaise,
On 31 October 2025, the Commission and Bell Canada (Bell) received a letter from Community Fibre Company, Inc. (CFC) regarding the termination of CFC’s Support Structure Agreement and pending disconnection of CFC’s telecommunications facilities by Bell.
CFC submitted that it was seeking, expedited interim relief to prevent the imminent disconnection by Bell of CFC facilities installed on Bell-owned support structures. Specifically, CFC requested an interim order directing Bell to refrain from suspending its services to CFC until the Commission has decided on CFC’s request for final relief, the outline of which was set out in the 31 October 2025 letter. In support of its request, CFC detailed its position regarding the test for interim relief laid out in RJR–MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 (the RJR MacDonald test), arguing that it satisfied all the requirements of that test. CFC also stated that it would be submitting an urgent Part 1 application detailing its final relief requested.
On 5 November 2025, the Commission issued a Secretary General letter temporarily enjoining Bell from disconnecting CFC’s facilities and requested that it provide its response to CFC’s arguments relating to the RJR MacDonald test. The letter also set out expectations that CFC file a Part 1 application in a timely manner.
On 19 November 2025, Bell filed its response to the RJR MacDonald test.
The Commission is currently considering CFC’s interim relief request and will be making a determination on the matter shortly.
As of the date of this letter, the Commission has still not received a Part 1 application from CFC detailing its final relief requested. Staff notes that ordinarily requests for interim relief are submitted in parallel with a full Part 1 application requesting final relief.
Staff also notes that, in response to the Commission’s 5 November 2025 order, Bell raised concerns. While Bell argued that it should be subject to no order preventing it from disconnecting CFC’s facilities from its support structures, it also argued that such an order, should one remain in place, be made subject to specific conditions.
In order to provide the Commission with a more fulsome understanding of the issues at hand and thereby better ensure a proper consideration of the matters before it, staff sets out the following process:
By 12 January 2026:
- CFC is to file a Part 1 application with a complete request for final relief
- CFC may provide comments regarding Bell's request for conditions to the existing administrative order enjoining Bell from removing CFC’s facilities
By 16 January 2026:
- Bell and CFC may provide arguments on whether and what impact the Part 1 application filed by CFC, should one be filed, is to have on the Commission’s disposition of the request for interim relief
- Bell may file any reply to comments made by CFC with respect to imposing conditions on the existing order
By 19 January 2026
- Bell and CFC may reply to arguments on the potential impact of the Part 1 on the request for interim relief.
As set out in section 39 of the Act and in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin 2010-961 (Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings), persons may designate certain information as confidential. A detailed explanation on why the designated information is confidential and why its disclosure would not be in the public interest must be provided, including why the specific direct harm that would be likely to result from the disclosure would outweigh the public interest in disclosure. In addition to the confidential version, an abridged version of the document omitting only the confidential information must be filed or reasons why an abridged version cannot be filed must be provided. Where a document is to be filed or served by a specific date, the document must be actually received, not merely sent, by that date.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Suneil Kanjeekal
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector, CRTC
c.c.: Joël Beaupré, CRTC, joel.beaupre@crtc.gc.ca
- Date modified: