Telecom - Staff Letter addressed to Dijana Lovric (Greenwin Corp.) and Adrien Alexson (Continuum Online Services Ltd.)
Gatineau, 23 May 2025
Our reference: 8622-C230-202403161
BY EMAIL
Dijana Lovric
Greenwin Corp.
19 Lesmill Rd.,
Toronto, ON M3B 2T3
dlovric@greenwin.ca
Adrien Alexson
Continuum Online Services Ltd.
1232 Victoria St. North,
Kitchener, ON N2B 3C9
Regulatory@netflash.net
Subject: Part 1 Application by Continuum Online Services Ltd, operating as Netflash Internet Solutions, requesting non-discriminatory and timely access on reasonable terms and conditions to MDUs managed by Greenwin Corp. — Opportunity to respond to Continuum Online Services LTD most recent filings of 6 March 2025 and 9 May 2025
Dear recipients,
On 27 February 2025, Commission staff issued a request for information (RFI) to Greenwin Corp (Greenwin) and Continuum Online Services Ltd., operating as Netflash (Netflash), requesting, among other things, an update on ongoing negotiations. The Commission received Netflash’s and Greenwin’s responses on 6 and 10 March 2025, respectively.
On 19 March 2025, Netflash filed a reply to Greenwin’s response. Further, on 9 May 2025 Netflash filed its proposed access agreement. Netflash filed these submissions out of process. Commission staff considers that it is in the public interest to accept this new information on the record.
In the interest of procedural fairness, through this letter, Commission staff provides Greenwin an opportunity to reply to Netflash’s 6 March 2025 response and proposed access agreement, by 5 June 2025. Greenwin’s reply must be limited to Netflash’s filings of 6 March 2025 and 9 May 2025.
Going forward, Netflash is encouraged to consult the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure. If Netflash believes that new information is relevant to Commission staff for the analysis of there application, they will have to make a formal procedural request in accordance with the rules and the Commission will decide whether to accept this information.
The Commission is an administrative tribunal and as such the proceedings and matters that are ongoing and under review will not be discussed nor will Commission staff share any details of such matters. Further, Commission staff will not give parties recommendations or strategic advice related to their applications or their involvements in any proceeding.
A Commission determination is not the only possible outcome of a Part 1 application. Netflash and Greenwin are encouraged to pursue discussions and find a mutually agreeable solution. A Part 1 application, at the request of the applicant, may be suspended or withdrawn as long as the Commission has not yet published a decision.
As set out in section 39 of the Telecommunications 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 Philippe Nadeau for
Suneil Kanjeekal
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector, CRTC
c.c.: Philippe Gauvin, Bell Canada, bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Simon-Pierre Olivier, Rogers Communications Canada Inc., regulatory@rci.rogers.com
Joël Beaupré, CRTC, joel.beaupre@crtc.gc.ca
- Date modified: