ARCHIVED -  Telecom Costs Order CRTC 96-32

Telecom Costs Order

Ottawa, 3 December 1996

Telecom Costs Order CRTC 96-32

In re: Tariffs for Educational and Health Service Entities - (Telecom Decision CRTC 96-9)

Reference: 1635-071

Application for costs by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC).

Position of the Parties

The AUCC became involved in the above-mentioned proceeding through York University (York), a member of the AUCC, which initially undertook to respond to Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-44. On 18 April 1996, the AUCC applied for costs for both its own participation in the proceeding and that of York.

The AUCC submitted that it has met the criteria set out in subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules), namely: it represents a group of subscribers that will likely be affected by the outcome of the proceeding, it has participated in a responsible way, and it has contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission.

Stentor Resource Centre Inc. (on behalf of its member companies, hereinafter referred to as Stentor) and Telesat Canada (Telesat) objected to the AUCC's application for costs by letters dated 3 June 1996 and 23 May 1996. No other party commented on the AUCC's application. Both Stentor and Telesat argued that the AUCC is more closely related to an industry association than to a public interest group and as such, it is a sufficiently funded group which must meet a more stringent criteria of eligibility for an award of costs.

Stentor submitted that in order for the Commission to award costs to sufficiently funded interveners such as the AUCC, there has to be an exceptional contribution on the part of the intervener or a high level of complexity and technical difficulty in the proceeding. Stentor submitted that these circumstances were not present in this case.

Moreover, Stentor and Telesat opposed the AUCC's application to recover costs for York's participation. They submitted that York does not qualify for an award for costs due to its lack of representation of a group or class of subscribers and, therefore, the AUCC should not be able to recover costs for York's participation in the proceeding.

In reply, the AUCC stated that neither it nor York has a specific mandate to concern itself with CRTC related matters and neither apportions membership or tuition fees to this activity nor should either be considered as associations where such monies are deemed allocated towards such participation. The AUCC stated that "neither the AUCC nor York could reasonably have anticipated this proceeding and neither organization maintains the in-house technical expertise required to deal with the complex language of telecommunications, nor for that matter, the expertise required to understand the Commission's processing of applications and the regulatory background to this proceeding in particular".

With respect to the allegation that York is not eligible for an award of costs, the AUCC submitted that York did indeed represent a group or class of subscribers "namely all of those individuals associated with the University now or in the future, who would stand to benefit directly from any preferential tariffs that the CRTC might decide are in the public interest". Accordingly, the AUCC submitted that costs should be awarded for both their participation.

DIRECTION AS TO COSTS

1. The application of the AUCC for an award of costs in the above-noted proceeding is hereby approved.

2. The Commission considers that the AUCC's application satisfies the criteria set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules.

3. The Commission is of the view that the exceptional nature of this proceeding must be considered in determining whether the AUCC should be awarded costs. The Commission notes that this proceeding involved "special and unique circumstances" as contemplated in Telecom Costs Order CRTC 93-10: In re: AGT Limited (AGT) - Issues Related to Income Taxes. In this case, the "special and unique circumstances" stem from the fact that this proceeding was initiated by the Commission with a view to obtaining input from the educational and health services sector. Such a proceeding would have been infinitely less credible without the participation of service providers in these sectors.

4. In addition, the Commission took into account the fact that the AUCC is a not-for-profit organization representing other not-for-profit organizations and the fact that, due to its lack of knowledge and experience in telecommunications regulatory proceedings, the AUCC has had to incur expenses not normally incurred by it.

5. With regard to the argument that the AUCC should not be able to recover costs for the participation of York, the Commission notes that while most of its costs awards have been to groups which represent large numbers of subscribers, it has also, from time to time, awarded costs to individual participants. Paragraph 44(1)(a) of the Rules does not restrict costs awards to applicants which are representative of a group or class of subscribers.

6. Costs awarded herein shall be paid to the AUCC by Stentor (on behalf of its member companies), TELUS Communications (Edmonton) Inc. (TCEI) (formerly ED TEL), Northwestel Inc. (Northwestel) and Telesat Canada (Telesat). The Commission considers that these are the appropriate respondents to this award for costs, given that each was made party to the proceeding by the Commission.

7. Consistent with previous costs orders, costs shall be paid by the respondents in proportion to their operating revenues from telecommunications activities, as reported in each company's most recent audited financial statements. Accordingly, the contribution from each respondent shall be as follows:

Stentor 95.5%

TCEI 2.0%

Northwestel 0.9%

Telesat 1.6%

100%

8. Costs awarded herein shall be subject to taxation in accordance with the Rules.

9. Costs awarded herein shall be taxed by Ann Mainville-Neeson.

10. The AUCC 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 the respondents.

11. The respondents may, within two weeks of receipt of those documents, file comments with the Taxing Officer with respect to the costs claimed, and serve a copy thereof on the AUCC.

12. The AUCC may, within two weeks of receipt of any comments by the respondents, file a reply to the respondents' comments, serving a copy thereof on the respondents.

13. All documents to be filed or served by a specific date must be actually received, not merely mailed, by that date.

Allan J. Darling
Secretary General

COS96-32_0