|
|
|
Ottawa, 27 June 1989
|
|
Telecom Costs Order CRTC 89-5
|
|
In Re: Telephone Set Compatibility with Hearing Aids
|
|
Application for costs by the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped (ARCH) on behalf of the Canadian Hearing Society, the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, the Canadian Association for the Deaf, the Canadian Coordinating Council on Deafness, the Canadian Hearing Impaired Youth Association, and several hearing impaired individuals.
|
|
DIRECTION AS TO COSTS
|
|
1. The application of ARCH for an award of costs in respect of the proceeding regarding
Telephone Set Compatibility with Hearing Aids is hereby approved.
|
|
2. ARCH intervened in the British Columbia Telephone Company (B.C. Tel) 1988 and 1989 Revenue Requirement Proceeding, requesting that the Commission require that telephones to be attached to the public switched telephone network of the federally regulated telephone companies be hearing aid compatible.
|
|
3. The Commission initiated a separate proceeding to consider ARCH's request, noting that a separate proceeding would facilitate the participation of all interested persons and would provide a better record on which to base a decision.
|
|
4. In their answers to ARCH's application for costs, Bell Canada (Bell), B.C. Tel and Northwestel Inc. (Northwestel) suggested that the Commission should not award costs to ARCH.
|
|
5. B.C. Tel and Northwestel argued that ARCH is not entitled to costs pursuant to section 44 of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules), which deals only with costs in revenue requirement proceedings. They acknowledged that the Commission has the power to award costs under section 76 of the National Telecommunications Powers and Procedures Act (the NTPPA), but suggested that it would not be appropriate to do so in this case. B.C. Tel noted that the Commission had decided to treat ARCH's submission as an application in a proceeding separate from a revenue requirement proceeding. According to Northwestel, to award costs in proceedings other than revenue requirement proceedings would be at the cost of consistency and predictability. Northwestel also noted that there had been little specific reference to it during the proceeding.
|
|
6. Bell suggested that an award of costs against the company "is not the appropriate vehicle to fund ARCH's activities regarding this matter" since during the proceeding the company had supported ARCH's objective of telephone set compatibility with hearing aids and the company's equipment procurement policies have also furthered that objective.
|
|
7. In reply, ARCH suggested that it would be inequitable to deprive it of costs as a result of the Commission decision to consider its intervention in a proceeding separate from the revenue requirement proceeding in which it had intervened. ARCH noted that it had intervened in the revenue requirement proceeding because the federally regulated telephone companies had not always supported its objective of telephone set compatibility with hearing aids. Furthermore, the matter of hearing aid compatible telephones relates to the territory and business of all the federally regulated telephone companies, including Northwestel. According to ARCH, it has satisfied all the criteria specified in section 44 of the Rules, and the hearing impaired individuals and non-profit organizations that it represents meet any financial means test. ARCH stated that it has provided extensive and relevant information, which was unavailable to the telephone companies, to assist the Commission in better understanding the issues.
|
|
8. With regard to the point made by B.C. Tel and Northwestel that the Rules contemplate awarding costs only to interveners in revenue requirement proceedings, the Commission notes that ARCH did intervene in such a proceeding, and considers that ARCH should not be penalized by the Commission's decision to initiate a separate proceeding to consider the matter raised in its intervention.
|
|
9. In any event, the Commission notes that section 76 of the NTPPA empowers the Commission to award costs in any proceeding, and to order by and to whom costs are to be paid. On several occasions in the past the Commission has awarded costs in proceedings other than revenue requirement proceedings, or has indicated that it would be prepared to do so if the criteria specified in section 44 of the Rules were satisfied. The Commission considers that there is no reason to limit the awarding of costs to proceedings likely to affect rates specifically, as opposed to other matters within Commission jurisdiction, such as terms and conditions or quality of service. In its view, the criteria specified in subsection 44(1) of the Rules for the awarding of costs are appropriate to such proceedings.
|
|
10. The Commission considers that ARCH's application meets the requirements of section 76 of the NTPPA and the criteria set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules.
|
|
11. Costs awarded herein shall be paid to ARCH by Bell, B.C. Tel and Northwestel, in proportion to their respective operating revenues derived from telecommunications activities as reported in each company's most recent audited financial statements, that is eighty, nineteen and one per cent, respectively.
|
|
12. Costs awarded herein shall be subject to taxation in accordance with the Rules.
|
|
13. Costs awarded herein shall be taxed by Allan Rosenzveig.
|
|
14. ARCH 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 Bell, B.C. Tel and Northwestel
|
|
15. Bell, B.C. Tel and Northwestel may, within two weeks of receipt of those documents, file comments with the Taxing Officer with respect to the costs claimed, serving a copy on ARCH.
|
|
16. ARCH may, within two weeks of receiving comments, file and serve its reply.
|
|
Fernand Bélisle
Secretary General
|
|
|