|
|
|
Ottawa, 30 June 1992
|
|
Telecom Costs Order CRTC 92-4
|
|
In re: Unitel Communications Inc. & B.C. Rail Telecommunications/Lightel Inc. - Applications to Provide Public Long Distance Voice Telephone Services and Related Resale and Sharing Issues: Application for Costs
|
|
Application for costs by the National Anti-Poverty Organization and Rural Dignity Canada (NAPO/RDC).
|
|
Background
|
In Telecom Costs Order CRTC 91-4 (Costs Order 91-4), the Commission granted NAPO/RDC an award of interim costs limited to disbursements, other than those relating to fees, incurred in connection with its intervention in the above-noted proceeding. NAPO/RDC were awarded a maximum of $56,775 for the purpose of obtaining transcripts of the main proceeding and a maximum of $8,625 for other disbursements. The Order provided that 60% of the costs awarded were payable by the applicants to the main proceeding, with the remaining 40% payable by the respondent telephone companies. Unitel Communications Inc. (Unitel) and B.C. Rail Telecommunications/ Lightel Inc. (BCRL) were directed to contribute to their 60% share, and the respondent telephone companies were directed to contribute to their 40% share, in proportion to their operating revenues from telecommunications activities.
|
|
The Order also required NAPO/RDC to file an application for final costs, along with the documentation required by section 45(4) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules), within 60 days of the last day of the hearing.
|
|
Submissions of Parties
|
NAPO/RDC filed their application for a final award of costs on 29 August 1991, requesting a confirmation of the interim costs awarded in Costs Order 91-4 and a final award covering their full costs of participation at the hearing.
|
Of the parties that filed comments regarding the application by NAPO/RDC for a final award of costs, only BCRL opposed the application. Among other things, BCRL submitted that NAPO/RDC participated in the hearing only sporadically and to a limited extent and that other parties to the proceeding had adequately addressed many of the issues of concern to NAPO/RDC. BCRL further submitted that NAPO/RDC's final argument merely presented a summary reiteration of its concerns and did not identify additional solutions to the problems raised or enhance the understanding of solutions advocated by other parties. BCRL suggested that the Commission should be more demanding with regard to costs for issue, as opposed to rate, proceedings. BCRL submitted that a final award of costs should not be made and further suggested that repayment of all or part of the interim award made in Costs Order 91-4 might be appropriate.
|
|
In their reply, NAPO/RDC submitted, among other things, that the fact that they had engaged only in selective cross-examination and that their participation was limited stands as evidence of the reasonableness of their approach in such a broad-ranging hearing.
|
|
DIRECTION AS TO COSTS
|
|
1. The application of NAPO/RDC for a final award of costs in respect of the above titled proceedingis hereby approved.
|
|
2. The Commission considers that NAPO/RDC have met the criteria set out in section 44(1) of theRules, and commends NAPO/RDC for restricting their participation in the hearing to issues ofspecific concern to their constituents. The Commission also commends NAPO/RDC forconsulting with other public interest interveners so as to minimize duplication of cross-examination on issues of common interest to such interveners.
|
3. The Commission directs that the costs awarded herein shall be paid to NAPO/RDC by theapplicants and respondents to the main proceeding in the same proportions as set out in CostsOrder 91-4.
|
|
4. Costs awarded herein shall be subject to taxation in accordance with subsection 44(6) of theRules.
|
|
5. Costs awarded herein shall be taxed by Lorne Abugov.
|
|
6. NAPO/RDC shall, within thirty days of the issue of this order, submit a bill of costs and anaffidavit of disbursements to the Taxing Officer, serving copies on the applicants andrespondents to the main proceeding.
|
|
7. The applicants and respondents to the main proceeding may, within two weeks of receipt ofthose documents, file comments with the Taxing Officer with respect to the costs claimed,serving a copy on NAPO/RDC.
|
|
8. NAPO/RDC may, within two weeks of receiving comments from the applicants and respondentsto the main proceeding, file its reply, serving copies on these parties.
|
|
9. In all cases, documents must actually be received, not merely mailed, by the dates indicated.
|
|
Allan J. DarlingSecretary General
|
|