Search

ARCHIVED - Costs Order CRTC 2000-1

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Costs Order
CRTC 2000-1
Ottawa, 18 January 2000
In re: Review of frozen contribution rate policy – Telecom Public Notice CRTC 99-5
File No.: 8692-C12-01/99
Application for costs by Action Réseau Consommateur, the Consumers' Association of Canada, and the National Anti-Poverty Organization (ARC/CAC/NAPO).
Background
1. The Commission received an application from ARC/CAC/NAPO, dated 3 August 1999, for costs associated with its participation in the above-noted proceeding. The Commission received comments on the application from Bell Canada (Bell) on behalf of itself and Island Telecom Inc. (Island Telecom), Maritime Tel & Tel Limited (MTT), MTS Communications Inc. (MTS), NBTel Inc. (NBTel), NewTel Communications Inc. (NewTel) (collectively, "Bell et al."); BC TEL; TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI); and AT&T Canada Corp. (AT&T Canada).
Positions of parties
2. None of the parties who filed comments objected to an award of costs for ARC/CAC/NAPO. The parties were divided, however, with respect to the question of the appropriate respondents for costs and with respect to the allocation of costs among respondents.
3. Bell et al. submitted that the appropriate respondents for any costs awarded would be those parties who had a significant interest in the outcome of the proceeding and who participated actively therein. Bell et al. noted that this proceeding addressed the appropriateness of adjusting contribution rates based on updated estimates of contribution-eligible minutes or contribution revenues, and that the proposal for such adjustments was made by AT&T Canada and Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net), for the purpose of benefiting alternate providers of long distance services (APLDS). Bell et al. further noted that the proceeding addressed the use of contribution rate reductions to meet price cap obligations, as originally proposed by NBTel and as supported by the other companies comprising Bell et al. In light of the issues addressed in the proceeding, Bell et al. proposed that costs be apportioned equally among its members and the APLDS participating in this proceeding.
4. AT&T Canada argued that acceptance by the Commission of the apportionment scheme advocated by Bell et al. would lead to absurd, inequitable results. AT&T Canada submitted that under the scheme, a small APLDS would be liable for costs to the same extent as an integrated telephone company 100 times its size. In AT&T Canada's submission, a more appropriate apportionment formula would be the one adopted by the Commission in Telecom Costs Order CRTC 99-3, relating to costs awards arising from Telecom Public Notice CRTC 98-10, Local Competition Start-up Costs Proceeding (PN 98-10). AT&T Canada submitted that the formula should be applied in the context of this costs award on the basis of two similarities between the PN 98-10 proceeding and the PN 99-5 proceeding. First, both concerned local service. Second, in both cases, it was clear to AT&T Canada that the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) serve the overwhelming majority of customers who benefit from the service under consideration in the proceeding. AT&T Canada concluded that costs should be apportioned using the allocation formula and classes of respondents provided for in Telecom Costs Order CRTC 99-3.
5. BC TEL and TCI submitted that any costs awarded should be apportioned among all parties who have a significant interest in the outcome of this proceeding. Specifically, BC TEL and TCI stated that those parties who participated actively in the proceeding through the filing of evidence/comments and/or interrogatories and who are subject to contribution charges would be the appropriate respondents to any costs awarded in this proceeding. BC TEL and TCI submitted that this approach would be consistent with the costs awards in Telecom Orders CRTC 98-17, 97-12 and 96-15.
Commission determination
6. In the Commission's view, ARC/CAC/NAPO has met the three requirements of subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, an award of costs is warranted in the circumstances.
7. The Commission is of the view that parties with a significant interest in the outcome of this proceeding include both the incumbent providers of long distance telephone service as well as new entrants.
8. This proceeding consisted of evidence, interrogatories, a deficiency/confidentiality process, and two rounds of comments. The Commission considers it appropriate in the circumstances of this proceeding to designate as respondents for costs those parties who are most significantly affected by the issues and who have participated actively. On this basis, Bell et al., BC TEL, TCI, AT&T Canada, Call-Net, RSL COM Canada Inc. (RSL COM) and London Telecom Network Inc. (London Telecom) would be the respondents for ARC/CAC/NAPO's costs.
9. The Commission notes that AT&T Canada and Call-Net's applications to unfreeze and adjust contribution rates largely led to this proceeding. The Commission therefore determines that these two parties should assume a percentage of costs that is commensurate with their high level of interest and participation in the proceeding.
Direction as to costs
10. The application for an award of costs in respect of the above-mentioned proceeding is approved.
11. Consistent with the reasons set out above, the Commission directs that costs awarded to ARC/CAC/NAPO be paid by the following respondents, in the proportions indicated:
Bell, on behalf of itself and
Island Telecom, MTT,
MTS, NBTel and NewTel  40%
BC TEL, on behalf of itself
and TCI                                   20%
AT&T Canada                         16%
Call-Net                                  16%
RSL COM                                 4%
London Telecom                         4%
12. Costs awarded herein shall be subject to taxation in accordance with the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure.
13. Costs awarded herein shall be taxed by Leanne Bennett.
14. ARC/CAC/NAPO shall, within 30 days of the issue of this order, submit a bill of costs and an affidavit of disbursements directly to the Taxing Officer, serving a copy on each respondent.
15. The respondents may, within two weeks of receipt of those documents, file comments directly with the Taxing Officer with respect to the costs claimed, serving a copy on ARC/CAC/NAPO.
16. ARC/CAC/NAPO may, within two weeks of receipt of any comments by the respondents, file a reply to the respondents' comments, serving a copy on each of the respondents in question.
17. All documents to be filed or served by a specific date must actually be received, and not merely sent, by that date.
Secretary General
This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be viewed at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
Date modified: