ARCHIVED - Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2004-6
This page has been archived on the Web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.
Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2004-6 |
|
| Ottawa, 23 April 2004 | |
Tatlayoko Think Tank Ltd. application for costs - Applications for stay and review and vary of Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-27andTelecom Decision CRTC 2002-56 |
|
| Reference: 8662-W32-200308131 and 4754-225 | |
|
1. |
By letter dated 19 August 2003, Tatlayoko Think Tank Ltd. (TTT) applied for costs with respect to its participation in the proceeding initiated by West Coast Teltech Ltd. and A & A Call Link Telesolutions Ltd. for a stay and review and vary of Follow-up proceeding to Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-56 - Foregone toll revenue compensation for expanded local calling areas, Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-27, 7 May 2003 (Decision 2003-27) and Framework for expansion of local calling areas, Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-56, 12 September 2002 (Decision 2002-56). |
|
2. |
On 29 August 2003, Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc., NorthernTel Limited Partnership, Northwestel Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications, and Société en commandite Télébec (collectively, the Companies) filed comments in answer to TTT's application. TTT filed reply comments on 8 September 2003. |
The application |
|
|
3. |
TTT submitted that it had met the criteria for an award of costs set out in subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules) in particular because it was representative of individuals, businesses and organizations from across British Columbia who have an interest in the outcome of the proceeding as that outcome will affect their quality of life as well as their ability to work and do business, it had acted in a responsible manner and it contributed to the Commission's understanding of the issues of concern to rural subscribers from across British Columbia. |
|
4. |
TTT requested that the Commission fix its costs at $4,033.90 for consultant fees. TTT's claim included the Federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) on fees. TTT filed a bill of costs with its application. |
|
5. |
TTT submitted that the appropriate respondents in this case were the incumbent telephone companies. |
Answer |
|
|
6. |
In their answer to TTT's application for costs, the Companies submitted that the TTT intervention contained only one paragraph that addressed the central issue of the review and vary proceeding. The remainder of the submission was largely a repetition of material submitted in a previous proceeding. |
Reply |
|
|
7. |
In its reply, TTT repeated its assertion that it had met the criteria for a costs award, and maintained that its submissions were relevant to the review and vary application. |
Commission analysis and determination |
|
|
8. |
The Commission notes that to qualify for an award of costs, an applicant must meet the three criteria set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules. The Commission considers that TTT met the first criterion as it was representative of individuals, businesses and organizations from across British Columbia who had an interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Further, TTT met the second criterion as it acted in a responsible manner in its participation in the process. |
|
9. |
With regard to the third criterion set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules, that the applicant contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission, the Commission notes that TTT argued that many smaller and northern municipalities did not have the resources to take advantage of the opportunities for expanding local calling areas. TTT also expressed concern with the quality of service in rural and remote areas. |
|
10. |
The Commission has considered the submissions made by TTT, and is of the view that the issues raised by TTT were not relevant to the above-noted proceeding. The Commission notes TTT's concern with reliable and good quality service in rural and remote areas, and notes that other proceedings have been undertaken to address these issues. In various proceedings, such as Follow-up to price cap Decision 2002-34: TELUS' revised service improvement plan, Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-64, the Commission has approved Service Improvement Plans wherein the Commission has considered issues regarding the extension and upgrading of rural service. |
|
11. |
In light of the circumstances, the Commission considers that TTT's application does not meet the criteria set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules for an award of costs. In particular, the Commission is unable to conclude that TTT's intervention contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission. |
|
12. |
Accordingly, the application of TTT for an award of costs in respect of the above-noted proceeding is denied. |
| Secretary General | |
| This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca |
Date Modified: 2004-04-23
- Date modified: