2014-06-08 Major win in Quebec Court of Appeal

1)   Attached is a flyer for the Kelowna Rally that can be downloaded to Facebook. Please spread the word by this Saturday’s Rally, June 14. Check www.citizensforsafetechnology.org for flyers for all events.

And this was in the last 3 editions of the Victoria Times Colonist, thanks to one of members.

Times Colonist – Coming Events Ad – June 06-08, 2014:
– http://classifieds.timescolonist.com/victoria/coming-events/smart-grid-protest-rally-jun/C0A801550ecc600BD3SSl19D4384

See Kelowna Rally Poster here

2)   www.stopsmartmetersbc.ca IS BACK!!  After 2 weeks of work by our dedicated webmasters, a new site is up and being developed. The look is different but hopefully one you’ll like. Keep checking on it as it gets fleshed out.

3)   Below, in the “letters” section is a member’s follow up to the appeal to the BCUC’s Legacy Fee Decision

4)   An important court action announced in Quebec, allowing municipalities the right to object to a location of cell transmitter/tower. Hopefully the Supreme Court of Canada will uphold it. A first major win of this sort in Canada.

Background Info:  Rogers wanted to place a cell phone base station near a residential community and citizens complained.  The City of Chateauguay took their complaints seriously and tried to find an alternative location for the tower.  Rogers disagreed with the location and so they went to court.  The case was heard in front of the Superior Court of Quebec.  The judgement was appealed by both sides and what follows is the Court of Appeal decision.  Magda Havas was an expert witness in this case on behalf of Chateauguay.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS DOSSIER: COURT OF APPEAL GIVES NOD TO CITY OF CHÂTEAUGUAY

Monday, 2 June, 2014:  In a judgment handed down on Friday, May 30, the Québec Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the City of Châteauguay right down the line regarding the implementation of telecommunications towers on its territory.

In a first judgment dated July 2, 2013, Québec Superior Court ruled in favour of the City concerning its request made to Rogers Communications Inc. to install a telecommunications tower on a lot acquired through expropriation at 50 Industrial Blvd. But the same court also affirmed that the City had acted in bad faith regarding the lot belonging to Mrs. Christina White. The judgment of last Friday confirms the right of the City to the expropriation and reverses the original decision which stipulated that the City had acted in bad faith.

In her judgment, Judge Julie Dutil indicates that the Law on Cities and Towns grants municipalities the power to possess immovables for the purposes of land claims and expropriation. The Council can, by conforming to the provisions of articles 571 and 572, and to the expropriation procedures prescribed by law, appropriate all buildings or part of a building or servitude if needed for municipal purposes.

Judge Dutil continues: [While examining the expropriation notices and the reserve as a whole (…), I am of the opinion that the judge (of the first ruling) erred by concluding that Châteauguay had acted in bad faith.] The judge recognizes (paragraph 77) that [Châteauguay imposed a notice of reserve in order to protect the well-being of its citizens, which is a municipal purpose.] Further on, Judge Dutil emphasizes that the City in no way wishes to prevent the installation of a new tower on its territory and that the object of the Law on radiocommunication is to permit the deployment of the telecommunications networks while respecting the local population.

For Châteauguay Mayoress Nathalie Simon, the Court of Appeal’s decision is a great victory for all municipalities. “The Court of Appeal is clear: the cities can decide what type of development that it wishes to have on their territory. It is also a beautiful victory for the citizens whose opinion was a determining factor in this decision.”

Source: http://www.ville.chateauguay.qc.ca/en/COM54_Jugement_Rogers

Press Release in English:  http://www.ville.chateauguay.qc.ca/sites/default/files/COM54A_Jugement_Rogers.pdf

See previous postings related to this case:   www.magdahavas.com

 

March 2, 2013:  Follow-up to Hearing before Superior Court of Quebec re: Rogers and Chateauguay.

http://www.magdahavas.com/follow-up-to-hearing-before-superior-court-of-quebec-re-rogers-and-chateauguay/

February 20, 2013:  Health Canada admits Safety Code 6 guideline for microwave radiation is based ONLY on thermal effects!

http://www.magdahavas.com/health-canada-admits-safety-code-6-guideline-for-microwave-radiation-is-based-only-on-thermal-effects/

5)    In the 2014-6-05 update I had this article, which apparently didn’t open for all unless a subscription was purchased. Sorry about that. It had opened for me. Can’t explain why. One member bought it to share and the entire article is below, in the letter section. (It opens oddly so be patient)

People in New Hampshire are being warned about the ITRON C1S (the digital meter that Hydro is installing on as many homes as possible). I am concerned that Hydro is pulling a fast one by getting as many digital meters on our homes as possible.

The spec sheet for Itron’s residential CENTRON Model C1S describes its ability to be upgraded easily to permit metering functions common to “smart meters,” such as demand, time-of-use and load profile. Utilities aren’t calling them “smart meters”;

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinion/commentary/1038355-474/the-new-generation-of-meters-not-benign.html \\  (this is no longer available online)

 See PDF version of this article here

6)   Dr. Cris Rowan,from right here in BC, writes about the warnings by The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Society of Pediatrics about the hazards of allowing young children to use wireless devices.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cris-rowan/10-reasons-why-handheld-devices-should-be-banned_b_4899218.html

*****************************

Letters:

From: Camelot [mailto:info@camelot-connection.com]
Sent: June-06-14 1:51 PM
To: ‘Complaints BCUC:EX’

Subject: RE: Order G-59-14 of April 25, 2014. Appeal on Decision on Application for Approval of Charges related to the Meter Choices Program
Importance: High

 

May 30, 2014

Dear Mr. Wruck,

Thank you for your reply to our Application.  On the basis of your guidelines including the three choices available to interveners, please consider this as an Application for Reconsideration by the Commission under Sections 99 and 100 of the Utilities Commission Act.

We believe that our Application meets the Commission’s Reconsideration Criteria:

We believe we established a “prima facie” case sufficient to warrant full consideration by the Commission.

  1.  We believe the Commission has “made an error which is substantiated on a prima facie basis and which has significant material implications”.  At the same time, a “basic principle has not been raised in the original proceedings”.

We understand (but do NOT agree) that the issue we are raising here is, according to the Commission, “outside the scope of the hearing” together with a long list of other issues which apparently cannot be taken into consideration for the same reason.  We also understand that the Commission is only allowed to discuss and approve fees which are appropriate in order to enable BC Hydro to recover the costs of the program.

The main error we claim the Commission made in its Decision was to essentially accept as true and accurate the figures and arguments provided by BC Hydro in its application to the BCUC.  The conclusions are based solely on data from BC Hydro which is taken for granted without review or audit.  In this regard, the Commission did not provide an “independent” evaluation of these figures and this is clearly shown by the fact that the Commission completely ignored the decisions taken by other jurisdictions in North America and failed to make an appropriate comparison with those decisions, opt-out rules and fee amounts.

BC Hydro’s figures and proposed charges are obviously inflated with the clear intent of persuading more and more people to accept a smart meter.  This is even admitted by BC Hydro itself in its statement within these proceedings “The number of customers deemed to have chosen a legacy meter will continue to decline……..This pattern is a result of the conditions under which eligible customers may retain legacy meters…”  The Commission based its conclusions on these inflated figures and costs claimed by BC Hydro.

The detailed table provided in our Application (see below) clearly shows that BC Hydro’s opt-out fees are the highest in North America by far and and therefore, in our opinion these fees are largely unjustified and not reflecting the real costs of managing the holdouts in the smart meter program.  In fact, there is no reasonable justification for these fees being so much higher in B.C. compared with very similar systems implemented in other Canadian Provinces and many US States.  The inflated program costs parallel those of the smart meters themselves which, again, are much higher than anywhere else in North America.   If the program costs claimed by BC Hydro were legitimate, then all the other jurisdictions in North America listed in the table would have gone bankrupt long ago soon after offering opt-out options at no fee or much lower fees.

In our opinion, any decision made without taking into any consideration existing data from other jurisdictions with similar systems in North America is one-sided and hence unacceptable.  This goes against your own mission statement posted on your website  “The British Columbia Utilities Commission is an independent regulatory agency of the Provincial Government…”  In reality, there is nothing “independent” in your 198-page Decision which has been totally misguided, restricted and maneuvered by BC Hydro and the Provincial Government for their own purposes and agendas.

We look forward to hearing from you soon regarding our Application.

Thank you

Prof.  R. Spogliarich
S. Spogliarich
Registered Interveners
BC Hydro’s Meter Choices Program

————————

From: Complaints BCUC:EX [mailto:Complaints@bcuc.com]
Sent: May-27-14 10:37 AM
To: ‘Camelot’
Subject: RE: Order G-59-14 of April 25, 2014. Appeal on Decision on Application for Approval of Charges related to the Meter Choices Program

Dear R. and S. Spogliarich,

Thank you for your email to the BC Utilities Commission regarding your concern about the Commission’s recent Decision on BC Hydro’s Application for Approval of Charges Related to the Meter Choices Program.  Commission staff confirm receipt of your correspondence and your concerns have been registered with the Commission.

Please note, the Commission Panel explained the reasons for their decision in the “Reasons for Decision”.  For additional information, please review Commission’s Reasons available on our website at: http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Decisions/2014/DOC_41269_04-25-2014_BCH%20Meter%20Choices_Decision_G-59-14_WEB.pdf

If you wish to file a reconsideration of the Decision, please review the Commission’s Reconsideration Criteria.  This information is available on our website at the following link:

http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Guidelines/2009/DOC_22551_Reconsideration-Criteria.pdf

I trust this information is helpful.  Thank you for contacting the Commission.

Regards,

Patrick Wruck
Customer Service Specialist
British Columbia Utilities Commission
6th Floor, 900 Howe Street, Box 250
Vancouver, B.C.  V6Z 2N3
Website: www.bcuc.com

Phone: 604.660.4700 | Fax: 604.660.1102 | Toll Free: 1.800.663.1385

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *