ARCHIVED - Letter
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
Our File No.: PDR 9174-1368
Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP
151 Yonge Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5C 2W7
ON BEHALF OF
2212 Gladwin Crescent, Unit C8
Ottawa, Ontario K1B 5N1
Re: Compliance and Enforcement Decision 2014-89 – Lev Olevson, carrying on business as Capital Windows and Doors and Advantage Pro – Violations of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules
On 24 May 2013, the Commission’s Chief Compliance and Enforcement Officer issued a Notice of Violation to Lev Olevson, which set out the details of alleged violations of the Commission’s Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules, and a corresponding Administrative Monetary Penalty of $8,000. The Notice of Violation advised Mr. Olevson that pursuant to section 72.07(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act (the Act), if he wished to have the notice of violation reviewed by the Commission, he could do so by way of written representations, due by 24 June 2013.
In Compliance and Enforcement Decision 2014-89 (Decision 2014-89), dated 28 February 2014, the Commission, inadvertently, failed to take notice of the representations filed on behalf of Mr. Olevson. In Decision 2014-89, the Commission stated that no representations were received, and deemed the violations to have been committed on that basis, pursuant to section 72.08(3) of the Act.
Between 4 March 2014 and 7 March 2014, the Commission was contacted by counsel for Mr. Olevson, who advised of representations they had made on his behalf before the deadline in the Notice of Violation, and provided an additional copy of these earlier representations, along with confirmation that they had been successfully delivered on 21 June 2013.
In light of the above, the Commission recognizes that due consideration was not given to the representations made on behalf of Mr. Olevson as part of the proceeding resulting in the issuing of Decision 2014-89. Therefore, as a result of this procedural defect, the Commission will consider the Notice of Violation issued to Mr. Olevson, and related documents including the representations filed on his behalf, on a de novo basis.
- Date modified: