CHSC St. Catharines ordered off the air.

[Dan Sys]

There have only been a handful of instances over the years where the CRTC has actually ordered a radio station off the air due to violations of the broadcast act and/or non compliance. One of those rare occasions happened today with the CRTC ordering CHSC 1220 in St. Catharines to cease operations by midnight August 31, 2010. The long list of violations leading to this decision is detailed here:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-533.htm

[The Unknown Copywriter]

Sounds like they've been very naughty broadcasters.

[Howaboutthat]

Naughty is right TUC. One can't help but wonder if the outcome would have been different if the station was owned by one of the 'Big 5'.

[Buckley]

Sounds like they've been very naughty broadcasters.

I think my favourite part is their explanation for why they weren't compliant with the 20 minutes of news one weekend: "the weekend news person was suddenly sick on the Sunday of the broadcast week that the Commission monitored the station and went home". Priceless

[Anotherwpgguy]

Coming from having had a lot of federal govt regulatory enforcement training, and having acted as an Adjudicator in cases where an Operating Authority has been suspended, I find it nothing short of hilarious that the CRTC go to a Federal Court Judge and request a Court Order be issued telling the licence holder that he/she must adhere to regulations made pusuant to the Broadcast Act.....especially when that is already an inherent Condition Of Licence.

Talk about redundant Bull Roar. The real difficulty is the CRTC refuse to enforce their regulations under the Act, chosing instead to deal with alleged breaches at the time of licence renewal.....sometimes many years after the alleged violation occurred, and details are at best fuzzy. Infractions of regulations must be proceeded with a maximum of one year after the event. That is the Statute of Limitations ... no doubt you've heard that term before, and have a basic grip on what it means.

If the government lays the charge a day too late, no prosecution action or issue of an administrative sanction is possible ... "the offender walks" this time. Next time, the regulator better lay the charge within the appropriate time frame.

Further, every last scrap of evidence the prosecution has in support of the violation must be disclosed to the alleged offender so they may offer a defence. Then both sides go before an unbiased person who decides if, based upon "beyond reasonable doubt," the event took place, and consider whether any mitigating factors come into play. An example of mitigation, .... the Licence Holder's testimony the news person became sick and went home ... maybe an entirely plausible explanation of fact. Its up to the prosecution to refute the statement, not just sit back, chortle, and guffaw.

The CRTC violate this basic tenent of law (statute of limitations) on a regular basis. A number of years ago, the Head of the CRTC Legal Dept told me after a hearing they do not enforce their regulations because the penalties they would obtain by prosecution in Federal Court, or by Administrative Action wouldn't be large enough in their opinion. By holding these unproven violations like a danglling sword over the heads of Licence holders, the Commission can scare the crap out of everyone by grosssly overstepping their legal authority.

Lets say somebody fails to meet a CANCON quota by say 10 cuts in a week. Well, under a typical court sentence, a corporation would be liable for a maximum fine of $25,000 and that would be imposed only on the worst offender, after repeatedly appearing before the Judge after multiple convictions for exactly the same offence. A more likely fine would be in the range of $500 to act as a deterent. In the big scheme of things, just how badly is Canadian society harmed by being short-changed by 10 cuts in a single week, when they may have been aired at a time when the station had minimal listeners anyway. The prosecution would have a pretty tough row to hoe to try and prove damages to an unknown potential recording act who might have sold 5 CDs based upon the exposure.

Under CRTC licensing hearing policy, they hold a vior dere ... (a trial within a trial) ... to determine the sanction which will be imposed by limiting the term or conditions of licence. That sanction far exceeds what would ever be imposed by a Federal Court of Canada Judge. Further, that sanction is imposed based upon an allegation of wrong-doing, not a proven case of guilt.[/b][/b]

I find all this stuff quite fascinating actually, and there is only one way they get away with it, and that is by the use of terror. What licence applicant in their right mind is going to stand before a kangaroo court at a CRTC Hearing and tell them they don't have the authority to limit licence validity based upon unproven allegations? Most of them are only too willing to drop to their knees and elbows, hope the next few minutes won't be too painful, and they get to go home with a licence still on the wall.

I brought this issue to the attention of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters before they went defunct, and they weren't interested in stirring up a nest of sleeping hornets at the CRTC ... they were too busy ensuring the correct number of olives were served to the Commissioners in their Martinis.

I'm sure I lost most of you after about the first paragraph because it didn't deal with who will replace Joe Schmoe on mornings during his vacation, but I find this quite entertaining, and a place to use my federal law enforcement training for something out of the ordinary.

Anotherwpgguy

[Howaboutthat]

I'm sure I lost most of you after about the first paragraph because it didn't deal with who will replace Joe Schmoe on mornings during his vacation, but I find this quite entertaining, and a place to use my federal law enforcement training for something out of the ordinary.

Anotherwpgguy

Joe's just on vacation?? Whew, that's a relief. I thought he'd been restructured!

[PMC]

An old AM station in a market that has other stations on every frequency available because of american market saturation.

The CRTC should dump the licence as they see it, thus giving another, the opportunity to be in that very competitive market.

[Dan Sys]

I don't know how well CHSC 1220 gets out in the East with Cleveland's 50KW WHKW 1220 (ex-WGAR) being in the neighbourhood, but back in the early 2000's I was amazed at how well they were coming in while DX'ing in Aldergrove during the winter months. Even had them on the car radio at one point. This of course was after CKDA & CJOC had vacated 1220.

[jon]

I don't know how well CHSC 1220 gets out in the East with Cleveland's 50KW WHKW 1220 (ex-WGAR) being in the neighbourhood

According to former Buffalo DX'er Paul Lotsof, WGAR was dominant in nearly half of St. Catharines at night, completely drowning out CHSC back in the late '60s when they were only 500 watts at night. Not sure what it is like now that they have 10,000 watts and a very tight (both day and night) directional pattern from 9 towers a long way South of St. Catharines.

As well as protecting WGAR, they also have to protect WECK 1230 in a Buffalo suburb: Cheektowaga, which is less than 40 km from CHSC's current transmitter site. WECK has 1KW non-directional, day and night.

As for CRTC regulation of stations, which Anotherwpgguy touches on, all the way back to the BBG days, it seemed to be a Licensing Model, rather than a Law Enforcement Model. It all reminds me of how Edmonton licenses bars and restaurants. There is no Statute of Limitations involved. Violations that occurred 10 years ago are still considered if ownership remains the same and there is any indication of less than perfect behaviour currently. The closest Law Enforcement equivalent would be Probation.

I have heard frequent accusations that the CRTC seems to single out small independent owners for the harsher punishments. Personally, I'm not aware of the specifics of "the majors" violating CRTC regulations over the last 10 years. Before that, I never understood why Shaw got off so easy for taking control of WIC before the CRTC had authorized the sale. But that is really a different "type" of violation, and I don't know of any examples of small independents doing anything similar.

[PMC]

I don't know how well CHSC 1220 gets out in the East with Cleveland's 50KW WHKW 1220 (ex-WGAR) being in the neighbourhood, but back in the early 2000's I was amazed at how well they were coming in while DX'ing in Aldergrove during the winter months. Even had them on the car radio at one point. This of course was after CKDA & CJOC had vacated 1220.

Living in the dx radio land of southern Ontario... breath on the radio tuner and pickup another station while driving down highway 401.

In 1969, I think CHSC ran 10k day and 1k at night, which caused the signal to fade/disappear... similar occured for many stations in the area, excluding the powerhouses like CKLW, CHUM or CFRB which boom into St Catherines... and that is only AM... the FM market has been the audience in southern Ontario since 1970 with stations like CHUM-FM... I haven't checked but I would guess that upper new york state radio probably has all the FM frequencies covered, except for whats comes off the CN tower.

[groundwave]

CHSC told the CRTC they didn't broadcast the required amount of English language news during a specific September 2009 period because "the English language announcer was ill." Surely they could have at the very least hired a part-time student temp from an area college radio arts program to read the English news and keep things compliant. Their excuse comes across like a broadcast industry equivalent of "the dog ate my homework."