June 18, 2022
(This statement is not part of the Rules.)
The Copyright Board (the Board) currently relies on its Model Directive on Procedure (the “Model Directive”) to outline the procedure it usually follows in considering a tariff proposal and the associated objections. The Model Directive contains few information requirements for Parties to support their participation (e.g. collective management societies only have to specify the royalties, terms and conditions, and period of application when filing their tariff proposals). In addition, the timelines and approaches can be tailored to each proceeding and revised along the way. Since rules of procedure vary from one proceeding to another, the Model Directive makes it difficult for Parties and potential participants to anticipate how to prepare for and engage in the various tariff-setting proceedings involving them.
The fact that Parties are not required to provide detailed information upfront to support their claims may also affect the quality and timeliness of the proceedings themselves. For example, prospective users may not know whether they should exercise their right to object to a proposed tariff, which may encourage them to object on principle only. The Model Directive also provides no incentive for Parties to find resolution early on since disputed issues are not laid out by Parties at the beginning. This can lead to delays in scheduling and lengthy interrogatories of an “exploratory nature” on issues of uncertain relevance.
From the Board’s viewpoint, the lack of information from Parties early on makes it difficult to assess the complexity of the file, plan accordingly the proceeding (including determining whether a particular file warrants a hearing, whether it can be fast-tracked with no hearing, etc.), and provide informed recommendations to Board Members in time for their deliberation. This is particularly problematic as the Board now implements the Time Limits in Respect of Matters Before the Copyright Board Regulations, which imposes, among other things, a 12-month timeline for the Board to render its decisions once the final submissions are filed and the deliberation phase commences.
The lack of clarity, transparency and predictability of rules and practices supporting the tariff-setting processes has undermined the Board’s credibility and ability to effectively play its role in the Canadian copyright ecosystem as an economic regulator and independent administrative tribunal. It has sometimes led to unnecessarily lengthy and overly complicated proceedings, affecting the ability of rights holders to get remunerated and users to access copyrighted content quickly and in a fair and equitable manner. For that last reason, it has been the source of staunch criticism by the stakeholder community.footnote 1
The Board is an economic regulator and independent specialized administrative tribunal established by the Copyright Act. A significant part of its mandate involves determining the royalties to be paid, and the terms and conditions related thereto, for the use of copyrighted works and other subject-matter when the administration of such copyright is entrusted to a collective management society (i.e. an organization responsible for collectively managing the rights and redistributing royalties to individual rights owners). The above is called the tariff-setting process. The total amount of royalties generated by the tariffs the Board certified in 2019footnote 2 was estimated at $588 million.
The Board manages tariff-setting proceedings for a range of activities involving the use of copyright-protected content, including, but not limited to the public performance or communication of musical works and of sound recordings of musical works (e.g. online, on the radio, in business establishments); the retransmission of distant television and radio signals; the reproduction of television and radio programs by educational institutions in specific circumstances; the making of private copies of music, and any other field where the Board is asked by a collective management society to set a tariff for the use of a copyrighted work.
In December 2016, the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce released recommendations for the Board aimed at “removing the delays that have been long-standing irritants to artists and businesses.”footnote 3 Broad public consultations on options to reform the Board were held by the Departments of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) and Canadian Heritage (PCH) and the Board in September 2017. Almost 60 submissionsfootnote 4 were received from individuals and organizations, many of whom are regular participants in Board proceedings. They reflected overwhelming support for modernization of the Board’s rules and practices, and the imposition of timelines for the rendering of Board decisions. In June 2019, in its report in the context of the Government’s five-year statutory review of the Copyright Act,footnote 5 the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (INDU) attested to the importance of improving the efficiency and timeliness of Board operations and practices.
Following these reports and consultations, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage introduced amendments to the Copyright Act to clarify, among other things, expectations toward the Board in regard to the timeliness of its decision-making. These legislative changes came into effect on April 1, 2019. On December 4, 2020, the Time Limits in Respect of Matters Before the Copyright Board Regulations came into effect, setting out broad timelines for certain aspects of Board procedures, including the period within which the Board must identify whether a tariff will require a hearing process; the period within which the Board must render a decision following Parties’ final oral or written submissions to the Board; and the period within which the Board must render a decision in cases where no hearing is held.
The proposed Regulations would implement the new statutory framework and modernized mandate set out in the amended Copyright Act; address specific issues raised by the INDU Committee and by stakeholders regarding the timeliness, efficiency, predictability and transparency of Board procedures; and detail how the Board will sequence its proceedings to be able to respect the timelines for decision-making introduced in the Time Limits in Respect of Matters Before the Copyright Board Regulations. They provide an important deliverable in relation to the Government of Canada’s commitment to modernize the Board, as articulated in its Intellectual Property (IP) Strategy and in the Creative Canada Policy Framework.
The proposed Regulations would create an operational framework for the Board aimed at helping rights holders get remunerated for their work and users get access to copyright protected creative content in a fair, equitable, transparent, timely and predictable manner.
The proposed Regulations would apply to all Board proceedings for tariff setting and for applications to set royalty rates in particular cases.
The proposed Regulations would sequence the tariff-setting process at the Board in a manner that will help the Board respect the timelines imposed by the Time Limits in Respect of Matters Before the Copyright Board Regulations. They would establish clearer rules and practices that will address the timeliness, efficiency, predictability, and transparency of Board procedures; and ensure that Parties have the required information to make informed choices about their participation in Board proceedings.
The proposed Regulations would replace the existing Model Directive, provide clearer guidance to Parties on how to engage with the Board, and establish specific requirements for their participation in tariff-setting proceedings. These requirements relate to the timing of filing and service of documents, the format of documents and exhibits, as well as the confidentiality and choice of language of communication.
The proposed Regulations would require a collective management society to provide an explanation of the grounds (notice of grounds) for its tariff proposal within seven days of filing. Objecting Parties would also need to include more robust information on the nature of their objections by filing a notice of grounds for objection. The proposed Regulations would further provide a time limit of 14 days after the filing of the notice of grounds for objection for the collective management society to file a reply.
The proposed Regulations would introduce the requirement to file a joint notice of issues within 90 days of commencement of proceedings or when ordered by the Board. If Parties cannot agree on the joint notice of issues, the proposed Regulations would stipulate that they shall file separate submissions with the Board, identifying the issues and the grounds on which they cannot agree.
The proposed Regulations would lay out the details of the Board’s case management authority set out in section 66.504 the Copyright Act. The proposed Regulations would clarify how the Board may use its case management authority as defined under subsection 66.6(1.1) of the Copyright Act. Case management could be used to keep Parties on track in terms of proceeding schedules by establishing timelines and a framework for interrogatories and questions around methodology and data gathering; clarifying criteria for procedural exceptions or deadline extensions; and specifying the type of information required to present cases efficiently. The proposed Regulations would also allow the case manager at the Board to issue binding orders on procedure following a case management conference, where necessary and appropriate.
The proposed Regulations would require that documents be filed by Parties electronically (in specific formats) with the aim to reduce the cost associated with printing and shipping hard copies of evidence and submissions to both the Board and other parties, as is the current practice.
The proposed Regulations would also provide guidance on the factors and terms under which the Board would consider the confidentiality of information provided in a proceeding, as well as the conditions attached to the use of expert witness evidence provided by Parties or independently by the Board.
The proposed Regulations would address the current lack of clarity with respect to non-party participation (e.g. an individual consumer or creator) in Board proceedings by explaining the means by which any interested person would be able to request leave to intervene in a proceeding. They would also standardize the way these requests would be considered by the Board.
The proposed Regulations would apply to all relevant proceedings, including those that have started before their coming into force. However, they would not invalidate any acts taken in accordance with the Model Directive up to that point.
Consultations with collective management societies and user groups who frequently appear before the Board took place on March 17, June 10, June 11, and June 16, 2021. Groups were kept small to facilitate exchanges. Sessions were offered in both official languages. A number of changes were made to the earlier version of the proposed Regulations following these sessions to further reduce the overall potential burden on parties, clarify certain procedures, and facilitate access to justice.
A number of draft provisions that would have required collective management societies to serve documents on a very significant number of persons, as well as some requirements in the Notice of Grounds for Proposed Tariff and in the Statement of Issues were removed. The requirement to file a Statement of Issues in certain situations was also removed.
Clarifications have also been made to the proposed Regulations to better explain how confidential information would be treated, and to address the various sequences in which parties may file case records and letters of comment.
While standardizing and clarifying procedures through regulation will make them more generally accessible to the public, no particular impact on modern treaty obligations and Indigenous Peoples is anticipated.
Currently, the Board relies on its Model Directive to provide guidance on its procedures. The Model Directive has not proven to be an effective tool in increasing predictability and ensuring compliance by Parties since rules are established on a case-by-case basis. The new mandatory requirements included in the proposed Regulations would apply across all cases and require compliance, supporting a more predictable, standard, and clear process for all participants and potential participants in Board proceedings. For this reason, developing regulations is the preferred and selected option.
The proposed Regulations would benefit the Board’s stakeholder community including collective management societies, various user groups such as industry or trade associations of users, and Canadian private companies. Fixed timelines, document requirements, early resolution of issues and, as a result, more targeted interrogatories, would help Parties plan their engagement activities with the Board more efficiently as they would know what to expect and how to meet Board expectations. This could be particularly beneficial to Parties relying on external legal counsel to represent them in Board proceedings, and small Parties with more limited resources. Some cost savings could also happen as a result of electronic filing requirements. The Board already encourages electronic filing through a practice notice, but the proposed Regulations would make this practice compulsory, unless an exception is granted.
For the Board itself, the main benefit of the proposed Regulations is that it would receive information from the Parties needed for its analysis at the beginning of proceedings, thus limiting requests to Parties later on for additional information. Board staff would be able to provide Board Members with complete files by the time the deliberation period begins. Finally, standardized methods of collecting information from the Parties through the use of electronic templates and forms would help the Board modernize its electronic information management system, provide easier access to information, and increase overall transparency of its activities.
The costs of the proposal are expected to be less than $1 million annually. While Parties would be required to provide information earlier on in proceedings, the amount or type of information required from Parties would be the same as under the current Model Directive.
To support Parties as they learn and adapt to the new requirements, the Board would incur costs to develop a series of templates and organize information sessions to ensure that its intent and expectations are well understood. The Board also intends to further enhance its case management capacity and maximize the use of its website to provide guidance to stakeholders and the public on how to engage with the Board.
It should be noted that, although the proposed Regulations may, in certain cases, lead to shorter procedural steps up to the deliberation phase, the overall length of proceedings up to the deliberation phase can vary between files based on factors beyond the Board’s control. Reasons for proceedings taking longer than anticipated include cases when Parties ask the Board to suspend proceedings for extended periods while they negotiate a settlement; difficulty in obtaining data and evidence, especially when dealing with new types of uses of copyrighted works (e.g. online streaming); complicated repertoire studies led by Parties; unavailability of experts; and decisions from upper Courts on matters affecting the interpretation of the Copyright Act or creating legal precedents affecting the Board’s own legal analysis. As an independent administrative tribunal, the Board must also ensure that streamlined proceedings do not come to the detriment of procedural fairness.
Analysis under the small business lens concluded that the proposed regulation would impact Canadian small businesses. Though some information requirements on Parties to Board proceedings might increase, these requirements are not typical administrative or compliance activities as described in the Policy on Limiting Regulatory Burden on Business. As well, the proposed standardizing, streamlining, and clarifying procedures would make Board proceedings more accessible, benefitting all parties and small businesses in particular.
The one-for-one rule would not apply to the proposed Regulations as they would not result in incremental administrative burden on businesses. While the proposed Regulations would impact the type of information required from the Parties, and the timing and format under which such information would need to be provided, the purpose of this information is to aid the Board in deciding, not for demonstrating compliance with the proposed Regulations.
The proposed Regulations are modelled after the rules of practice and procedure of a number of federal administrative tribunals that administer comparable proceedings, including those of the Canadian Energy Regulator, the Competition Tribunal, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
While Canada is member to a number of international treaties and agreements that include obligations with respect to copyright, the proposed Regulations have no linkage to them as rules of practice and procedure in Board proceedings are not subject to any international agreements or obligations.
In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic environmental assessment is not required.
No gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) impacts have been identified for this proposal. While standardizing and clarifying procedures through the proposed Regulations would make them more generally accessible to the public, they would not have any potential differential or adverse outcomes to Canadians based on distributional factors such as gender, age, education, language, geography, culture, and income.
The proposed Regulations are expected to come into force on the day they are registered.
As part of the implementation of the proposed Regulations, information material, including templates, would be developed and made available on the Board’s website to help Parties understand the timelines, the requirements, and the format in which input to the Board will need to be provided. Technical workshops would also be organized for Parties to review new requirements and answer questions. Following implementation, the Board would continue to offer guidance to Parties via its Registry staff, as required, and seek suggestions and comments. The Board would use that feedback to modify templates and other guidance documents, if required.
The Board is in the process of reviewing and updating all its performance measures by 2022–2023 to reflect its updated legislative and regulatory framework, and as part of its commitment to increase transparency and efficiency. The proposed Regulations and their resulting streamlined processes would be considered as part of the new performance measurement initiative. The Board reports on its performance to Parliament, through the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.
Section 66.7 of the Copyright Act gives the Board the rights and privileges as are vested in a superior court of record, including with respect to matters that would be covered by the proposed Regulations. Furthermore, “any decision of the Board may, for the purpose of its enforcement, be made an order of the Federal Court or of any superior court and is enforceable in the same manner as an order thereof.”footnote 6 As per subsection 66.91(2) of the Copyright Act, the Board also has the authority to adapt, restrict or exclude the application of any provision of the proposed Regulations.footnote 7
Parties would be expected to respect the proposed Regulations from the time they are in effect and would be able to seek guidance and advice from the Registry staff on how to comply with the proposed Regulations, on a continuous basis.
Considering the proposed Regulations articulate the precise sequence, procedural steps and timelines associated with any given tariff-setting proceeding, as well as create various requirements for both the Board and the Parties, therefore developing additional service standards is not necessary.
Copyright Board of Canada
Notice is given that the Copyright Board, under section 66.6footnote a of the Copyright Act footnote b and subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, proposes to make the annexed Copyright Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Rules within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Lara Taylor, Secretary General, Copyright Board, 56 Sparks Street, Room 806, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C9 (email: email@example.com).
Ottawa, May 17, 2022
Vice-chair and Chief Executive Officer of the Copyright Board
3 Dispensing with, varying or supplementing rules
5 Days not counted
6 Definition of business day
7 Time limit
11 Manner of filing
12 Date of filing
13 Manner of service
14 Documents and proceedings
15 Filing of notice of grounds
16 Contents of notice
17 Filing of certain documents
18 Filing of notice of grounds for objection
19 Contents of notice of grounds for objection
20 Additional information
21 Timing of reply
23 Sufficient information
25 Joint statement of issues to be considered
26 Contents of statement
27 Lack of agreement
28 Consideration of Other Issues
29 Definition of case manager
30 Powers of case manager
31 Case management conference
32 Case management order
33 Request for variation of order
34 Joint request
36 Authorization of Filing
37 Filing and service
38 Legal brief
40 Written or oral hearing
41 Simultaneous interpretation services
42 Oral hearing open to public
43 Documents received during oral hearing
45 Supplemental information
46 Confidentiality order
48 Expert witness report
49 Appointment of independent experts
51 Severance and Consolidation
52 Request for leave to intervene
53 Letter of comment
54 Proceedings commenced
1 The following definitions apply in these Rules.
2 These Rules apply to any matter in relation to
Dispensing with, varying or supplementing rules
3 The Board may vary or dispense with compliance with a rule, in whole or in part, or supplement a rule, in order to deal with all matters as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit and, if necessary, in order to allow meaningful participation.
4 The Board may, on its own initiative or on the request of a party or interested person, issue directions in respect of any procedural issue not explicitly addressed by these Rules or in respect of any uncertainty as to the application of these Rules.
Days not counted
5 The days included in the period beginning on December 21 in one year and ending on January 7 in the following year do not count in the calculation of a time limit set out in these Rules or in an order or a direction of the Board.
Definition of business day
6 In these Rules, business day means a day other than a Saturday, a holiday or a day that falls in the period referred to in rule 5.
7 If a time limit set out in these Rules or an order or direction of the Board falls on a day other than a business day, the time limit is extended to the next business day.
8 No document or proceeding under these Rules is invalid by reason solely of a defect in form or technical irregularity.
9 If a party does not comply with these Rules, an order or direction of the Board, the Board may
10 In all proceedings before the Board, the quorum is one member.
Manner of filing
11 Unless otherwise provided by these Rules, a document to be filed with the Board must be filed by the electronic means specified by the Board.
Date of filing
12 The date of filing of a document with the Board is the date on which the Board receives the document. A document filed after 17:00 Ottawa local time is deemed to have been filed on the next business day.
Manner of service
13 (1) Service of a document is effected by sending the document to a person or the person’s authorized representative by email. If it cannot be effected by email, service may be effected by personal service, by mail to the address for service as described in subrule (2) or by any other means that the Board authorizes.
Address for service
(2) The address for service is
Date of service
(3) The date of service of a document is the day on which the person being served or the person’s authorized representative receives the document. A document received after 17:00 Ottawa local time is deemed to have been served on the next business day.
Proof of service
(4) If a person serves a document, the person must, at the Board’s request, file a proof of service of the document with the Board, in the form and manner specified by the Board.
Proof of service — email
(5) Absent evidence to the contrary, the electronic message that accompanies a document sent by email constitutes proof of service of that document and the document is deemed to have been served 24 hours after the date and time set out in the message.
Documents and proceedings
14 (1) Subject to subsections 68.1(1) and 83(3) of the Act, documents used in a proceeding before the Board must be in the official language or languages of the parties’ choice and proceedings must be conducted in the official language or languages of the parties’ choice.
(2) A document written in a language that is other than English or French may be filed and served only if it is accompanied by a translation of that document into English or French and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation.
Filing of notice of grounds
15 A collective society that files a proposed tariff must file with the Board a notice of grounds for the proposed tariff within seven days after the day on which the proposed tariff is filed.
Contents of notice
16 The notice of grounds for the proposed tariff must
Filing of certain documents
17 (1) A collective society that files a proposed tariff that covers the same or substantially the same uses as those in the last approved tariff or, if there is no approved tariff, in the last proposed tariff, must file with the Board a comparative document that indicates the differences between the two tariffs.
Publication of notice
(2) The Board must, in the manner that it sees fit, publish the notice of grounds for the proposed tariff and the comparative document.
(3) A collective society that files a notice of grounds may file additional information for the Board’s consideration of the proposed tariff.
Filing of notice of grounds for objection
18 A person that objects to a proposed tariff must file an objection with the Board in accordance with subsection 68.3(2) of the Act together with a notice of grounds for objection.
Contents of notice of grounds for objection
19 The notice of grounds for objection must, as applicable,
20 At the same time a person files a notice of grounds for objection, the person may also file additional information for the Board’s consideration of the proposed tariff and of alterations to the royalty rates and to the related terms and conditions or of the new related terms and conditions.
Timing of reply
21 A collective society that intends to file a reply to an objection under subsection 68.4(1) or 83(7) of the Act must do so within 14 days after the day on which it receives the notice of grounds for objection.
22 The Board may grant leave to amend a notice of grounds for a proposed tariff or a notice of grounds for objection on the terms that it considers appropriate.
23 If the Board concludes that it has sufficient information to decide a matter before it, the Board may decide the matter only on the information provided in the notice of grounds for the proposed tariff, any notice of grounds for objection and any reply to an objection and on any other filed information.
24 The Board or the case manager must notify all parties when the Board commences a proceeding.
Joint statement of issues to be considered
25 (1) Subject to an order of the Board or case manager, if the Board has commenced a proceeding with respect to a proposed tariff and an objection to the proposed tariff has been filed, the parties to that proceeding other than an intervener, must jointly file with the Board a joint statement of issues to be considered.
(2) The joint statement of issues to be considered referred to in subsection (1) must be filed within 90 days after the day on which the proceeding is commenced or within the time limit specified by the Board or case manager.
Contents of statement
26 The statement of issues to be considered must contain
Lack of agreement
27 If the parties are unable to agree on a joint statement of issues to be considered, each party to the proceeding, other than an intervener, must file with the Board and serve on each other party, within the time limit referred to in rule 25, a separate statement of issues to be considered that contains
Consideration of Other Issues
28 The Board may consider relevant issues other than those identified by the parties in the statement of issues to be considered.
Definition of case manager
29 For the purposes of rules 24, 25, 30 to 36 and 53, case manager means the person assigned by the Chair under subsection 66.504(1) of the Act.
Powers of case manager
30 (1) In relation to a matter or any step in a matter, the case manager may give a direction or make an order that adapts, restricts or excludes the application of any provision of these Rules.
Participation in decision on merits
(2) The assignment of a member as the case manager does not prevent that member from participating in the decision on the merits of the matter.
Case management conference
31 (1) The case manager may, during the course of a matter, conduct one or more case management conferences.
Topics to be considered
(2) During a case management conference, any of the following topics may be considered:
Case management order
32 After a case management conference, the case manager may make an order relating to any issue considered at the case management conference.
Request for variation of order
33 (1) A party may submit a request to the case manager to vary a case management order made under rule 32. The request must be filed with the Board and served on each other party.
Content of request
(2) The request to vary must indicate the reason why the request is being made and must include a statement indicating whether the other parties have consented to the variation.
Variation of the order
(3) The case manager may vary the order if there are compelling reasons to do so.
34 (1) If a collective society and one or more objectors jointly submit a set of royalty rates and related terms and conditions to the Board and they jointly request that the Board approve a proposed tariff based on those royalty rates and terms and conditions, they must
(2) On receiving the request, the Board or the case manager may, if it or they consider it appropriate to do so, establish any procedural steps in the matter or make modifications to any schedule of proceeding.
35 The Board or the case manager may make an order to permit interrogatories and to specify their number, type, scope and form, the time limits for their completion and the person to whom they may be addressed.
Authorization of Filing
36 (1) The Board or the case manager may authorize the filing of a case record, response to a case record, or reply to a response and may specify which parties may file them.
(2) If a party files a case record, response to a case record, or reply to a response with the Board, they must serve it on each other party.
Contents of case record or response
(3) The case record or response to a case record must contain
Contents of reply
(4) A reply to a response to a case record must contain
Filing and service
37 (1) Any case record, any response to the case record and any reply to the response must be filed and served within the time limits set by the Board.
(2) Unless the Board orders otherwise, in addition to the electronic filing referred to in rule 11, two paper copies of any case record, response to the case record and reply to the response must be filed with the Board.
38 (1) The Board may, in response to a request of a party or on its own initiative and on terms that it considers appropriate, allow a party to file a legal brief and allow other parties to file a response to that legal brief.
(2) The legal brief and any response to the legal brief must be served on each other party.
39 The Board may grant leave to amend a statement of issues to be considered, case record, response to a case record, reply to a response to a case record, legal brief or response to a legal brief on the terms the Board considers appropriate.
Written or oral hearing
40 The Board may hold a written or oral hearing in respect of any matter before it.
Simultaneous interpretation services
41 A party that requires simultaneous interpretation services must submit a request to the Board at least 30 days before the date of the hearing.
Oral hearing open to public
42 (1) Unless the Board orders otherwise, oral hearings of the Board on the merits of a matter are open to the public.
(2) A party may submit a request to the Board for all or a portion of an oral hearing not to be open to the public. The Board may make any order that it considers appropriate in the circumstances.
Documents received during oral hearing
43 A document that is not part of a case record, a response to a case record or a reply to a response to a case record must not be received as evidence at an oral hearing unless it is to be used only for the purposes of cross-examination of a witness or the Board permits it to be received as evidence.
44 (1) The Board may cause a transcript, recording or other record of an oral hearing on the merits of a matter to be prepared.
Copy of transcript
(2) A party may obtain a copy of the transcript, recording or other record of an oral hearing at its own cost.
45 The Board may, at any time in a proceeding, require a party to provide it with information or documents to supplement the record.
46 (1) At any time in a proceeding, parties may file a joint request for a confidentiality order with the Board. The request must specify the manner in which the information to be designated as confidential or highly confidential is to be treated and must be accompanied by a proposed confidentiality order.
Documents filed before commencement
(2) No information may be designated as confidential or highly confidential in documents filed with the Board prior to the commencement of the proceeding.
(3) In the absence of an agreement among the parties, a party may file its own request for a confidentiality order with the Board, together with a proposed confidentiality order and a statement indicating the reasons why the parties could not agree.
(4) Once a confidentiality order has been made, a party may designate the information that it filed with the Board in the proceeding as confidential or highly confidential.
(5) The Board may, in response to a request from a party or on its own initiative, determine whether the designation is warranted and make any order that it considers appropriate.
(6) Any document that is filed with the Board in relation to a matter and any related proceeding is placed on the public record, unless the document has been designated as confidential or highly confidential.
47 The Board may order that a party request leave before designating any information as confidential or highly confidential as well as provide an explanation that justifies the designation.
Expert witness report
48 (1) Every party who, in a proceeding before the Board, intends to introduce evidence given by an expert witness must
Refusal of Board
(2) The Board may refuse to consider expert witness evidence if that evidence addresses issues not mentioned in a statement of case or during a case management conference.
Appointment of independent experts
49 (1) The Board may, at any time, by order, appoint one or more independent experts to inquire into and report on any question of fact or give their opinion relevant to an issue in a proceeding.
(2) The report of an independent expert is to be placed on the public record of the proceeding.
(3) Any party may make submissions to the Board with respect to the terms of the appointment of an independent expert and may file a written response to the independent expert’s report.
50 The Board may, in response to a request from a party or on its own initiative, issue a subpoena for the attendance of a witness at the hearing or for the production of documents.
Severance and Consolidation
51 At any time the Board may, on its own initiative or at the request of any party, order that any proceeding be severed or, that any two or more proceedings be consolidated, heard together, heard consecutively or severed.
Request for leave to intervene
52 (1) Any person with an interest in a proceeding that is before the Board and that is in respect of a proposed tariff or an application under subsection 71(1) of the Act, may make a request to the Board for leave to intervene.
Filing of request
(2) The request for leave to intervene must be filed with the Board as soon as feasible after the commencement of a proceeding and served on each other party.
Form and content
(3) A request for leave to intervene must be in writing and must set out
(4) Any party may make submissions with respect to the request for leave to intervene by filing them with the Board and serving a copy of them on the requester within 15 days after the day on which the served request to intervene is received.
Factors considered by the Board
(5) In determining whether to grant leave to intervene, the Board must consider
Decision of the Board
(6) The Board may grant or deny the request for leave to intervene and impose any condition or restriction that it considers appropriate, including a restriction on the scope of the intervention.
Notice to parties
(7) The Board must notify the parties to the proceeding of its decision.
(8) Subject to any confidentiality order and any restrictions imposed by the Board under subrule (6), each party must serve on the intervener or its authorized representative any document that is filed by a party after the day on which the parties are notified of the Board’s decision to grant the request for leave to intervene.
Letter of comment
53 (1) Any interested person that does not intend to request leave to intervene but wishes to make comments on the proceeding may file with the Board a letter of comment before
Contents of letter
(2) The letter of comment must contain
Copies to parties and on public record
(3) The Board must provide all parties with a copy of any letter of comment and must place a copy of the letter on its public record of the proceeding.
(4) A party may, within 15 days after the day on which the party receives a letter of comment, file a response with the Board and serve a copy of that response on all parties.
Consideration by the Board
(5) A letter of comment that is filed with the Board and any response to that letter must be considered by the Board.
(6) A person that files a letter of comment with the Board does not become a party to the proceeding.
54 (1) These Rules apply in respect of all proceedings before the Board whether commenced before or after these Rules come into force, except in respect of steps already taken before the coming into force of these Rules.
Directive of the Board
(2) Any proceeding commenced or document filed in accordance with a directive of the Board before the coming into force of these Rules is not invalid merely because the proceeding or document does not conform to these Rules.
55 These Rules come into force on the day on which they are registered.