|
|
|
Ottawa, 5 January 1989
|
|
Telecom Costs Order CRTC 89-1
|
|
In Re British Columbia Telephone Company - Revenue Requirement Proceeding for the Years 1988 and 1989
|
|
Application for costs by the Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia et al (SPARC)
|
|
DIRECTION AS TO COSTS
|
|
1. During its final argument at the British Columbia Telephone Company (B.C. Tel) Revenue Requirement Proceeding for the Years 1988 and 1989, SPARC applied to the Commission for an award of costs with respect to its participation in the proceeding.
|
|
2. B.C. Tel provided its answer to the application on 30 September 1988. In its answer, B.C. Tel submitted that the participation of SPARC warranted only a partial award of costs on the basis that a significant portion of the interrogatories, cross-examination and argument of SPARC failed to contribute to a better understanding of the issues in this proceeding by the Commission. Specifically, the company argued that SPARC had pursued several issues at length, motivated by an interest in the subject area, but without assessment or due concern as to whether such information was useful in contributing to the Commission's better understanding of the issues before it. Second, the company submitted that the questioning was unfocused and limited in its impact to educating counsel for SPARC. In the company's view, SPARC's entitlement should accordingly be limited to 60% of its costs.
|
|
3. SPARC replied to B.C. Tel on 17 October 1988. In its reply, SPARC noted the Commission's stated view that it is in the public interest to have as wide and informed a discussion as possible on issues to be addressed at the hearing. SPARC argued that it had identified and cross- examined on important and relevant issues for the Commission's consideration, such as the company's emergency planning process. SPARC also pointed out that during cross- examination on the issue of extended area service, a number of interveners and Commission counsel relied on interrogatories submited by SPARC. Finally, SPARC rejected the argument that certain lines of cross-examination were unfocused and too lenghty, arguing instead that sufficient depth of scrutiny of each issue is important, even if this necessitates lengthy questioning and the raising of issues.
|
|
4. According to Section 44 of the CRTC Telecommunication Rules of Procedure, the Commission may award costs to any intervener who
|
|
a) [represents] a group... of subscribers that has an interest in the outcome of the proceeding...;
|
|
b) has participated in a responsible manner; and
|
|
c) has contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission.
|
|
5. The Commission recognizes that SPARC elicited from B.C. Tel some information of value to the Commission. However,it is not persuaded that SPARC has met the criteria set out above with respect to all aspects of its participation in the proceeding. Specifically, the Commission considers that parts of SPARC's cross-examination were unfocused and too lenghy and that in general there was insufficient depth of knowledge in the cross-examination and final argument to contribute to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission.
|
|
6. The Commission has therefore concluded that SPARC is entitled to 60% of its costs to be paid by B.C. Tel.
|
|
7. Costs awarded herein shall be subject to taxation in accordance with the CRTC
Telecommunications Rules of Procedure.
|
|
8. Costs awarded herein shall be taxed by Sheridan Scott.
|
|
9. SPARC shall, within 30 days of the issue of this order, submit a bill of costs and an affidavit of disbursements to the Taxing Officer and serve a copy thereof on B.C. Tel.
|
|
10. B.C. Tel may, within two weeks of the receipt of the bill of costs and affidavit of disbursements, file its comments with the Taxing Officer with regard to the costs claimed, and serve a copy thereof on SPARC.
|
|
11. SPARC may file a reply within two weeks of receipt of B.C. Tel's comments, serving a copy thereof on B.C. Tel.
|
|
Fernand Bélisle
Secretary General
|
|
|