ARCHIVED - Costs Order CRTC 2000-5
This page has been archived on the Web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.
|
Costs Order CRTC 2000-5 |
|
| Ottawa, 31 January 2000 | |
| In re: Location of demarcation point for inside wire in multi-tenant buildings and associated issues – Telecom Public Notice CRTC 98-35 | |
| File Nos.: 8644-C12-01/98 and 4754-163 | |
|
Application for costs by the BC Old Age Pensioners' Organization, Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations of BC, federated anti-poverty groups of BC, Senior Citizens' Association of BC, West End Seniors' Network, Consumers' Association of Canada (BC Branch), BC Coalition for Information Access, End Legislated Poverty and Tenants Rights Action Coalition (BCOAPO et al.). |
| Background | |
|
By letter dated 25 May 1999, BCOAPO et al. applied for costs associated with their participation in the above-noted proceeding (the PN 98-35 proceeding), including their participation in the Building Access and Inside Wiring Sub-Working Group (SWG) of the CRTC Interconnection Steering Committee (CISC) prior to the public notice being issued. |
|
BCOAPO et al. submitted in their application that they met the criteria for an award of costs set out in section 44 of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules). |
|
BCOAPO et al. requested that the Commission dispense with the taxation process and fix the amount of the costs to be paid in the amount of $5,142.47. They further proposed that BC TEL be made responsible for costs. |
|
BCOAPO et al. noted that the last date for submissions in this proceeding was 1 February 1999. They further noted that under the Rules, applications for costs are to be made within 30 days of the last day of the hearing. In BCOAPO et al.'s submission, however, a hearing is not complete until a decision is rendered. Since a decision had not been rendered at the time the application for costs was filed, BCOAPO et al. submitted that they were within the time limit for claiming costs. In the event that their interpretation of the Rules is wrong, BCOAPO et al. submitted that BC TEL has not been prejudiced in any way by the delay, which was minimal. |
| Positions of parties | |
|
By letter dated 3 June 1999, in response to BCOAPO et al.'s application for costs, BC TEL noted that it did not object to the fact that BCOAPO et al. filed their application late, but reserved the right to object to any further application for costs submitted after the deadline set out in the Rules. |
|
BC TEL did not comment on the substantive aspects of BCOAPO et al.'s application, but submitted that the appropriate respondents for any costs awarded in this proceeding would be those parties who have a significant interest in its outcome and who have participated actively therein. |
|
On 24 September 1999, other interested parties were requested to comment on BCOAPO et al.'s application. |
|
On 12 October 1999, Bell Canada filed comments on behalf of itself, Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., NBTel Inc. and NewTel Communications Inc. (Bell et al.). |
|
Bell et al. did not object to the costs application for reason of its late submission, although they noted their concern that applications for costs should be submitted on a timely basis. |
|
Bell et al. argued that it would be inappropriate to allow BCOAPO et al. to recover costs for participation in the CISC SWG on this application. Moreover, Bell et al. characterized the submissions of BCOAPO et al. in PN 98-35 as a mere reflection of those prepared by ARC/CAC/NAPO, and showed a limited understanding of the issues. Bell et al. therefore submitted that BCOAPO et al.'s application for costs should be denied. |
|
In the event the Commission awarded costs to BCOAPO et al., Bell et al. argued that the appropriate respondents to any such costs should be those parties who participated actively and had a significant interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Bell et al. noted that this would include building owners, who should share "prominently" in the allocation of any costs awarded. |
| Commission determination | |
|
The Commission considers that BCOAPO et al. has satisfied the criteria for an award of costs under section 44 of the Rules. In the Commission's view, the reference to the requirement under subsection 44(2) of the Rules to file a costs application within 30 days of the last day of the hearing means that a party seeking costs should file its application within 30 days of the date the record closes. Nevertheless, in light of the fact that no party was prejudiced by the minimal delay, the Commission is prepared to grant an extension of time for filing the costs application in this case. |
|
In the Commission's view, it is evident that BCOAPO et al.'s application is in respect of their participation in both the CISC SWG and the PN 98-35 proceeding. The Commission considers that it is not unreasonable to award costs in both proceedings on a single application. |
|
Although the bulk of BCOAPO et al.'s submission in PN 98-35 repeated their contribution in the CISC SWG, the Commission considers that BCOAPO et al.'s efforts in both processes did contribute to a better understanding by the Commission of the issues to be determined. |
|
Given the size of BCOAPO et al.'s claim and the relative brevity of this proceeding, the Commission considers it appropriate in this case to dispense with the taxation process and fix the amount of costs to be awarded to BCOAPO et al. |
| Appropriate respondents | |
|
The Commission notes that it was Stentor's proposal relating to the location of the demarcation point which ultimately gave rise to the PN 98-35 proceeding. The Commission further notes that both the CISC SWG and the PN 98-35 proceeding were concerned with the location of the demarcation point of the telephone companies' inside wire. In the circumstances, the Commission considers that the appropriate respondents for costs are the telephone companies, namely Bell et al. and TELUS Communications Inc./TELUS Communications (B.C.) Inc. [the latter formerly known as BC TEL] (TCI/TCBCI). |
| Direction as to costs | |
|
The Commission approves BCOAPO et al.'s application for costs of participating in the CISC SWG and in the PN 98-35 proceeding. Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the amount payable in the amount of $5,142.47. |
|
For the reasons mentioned above, the award of costs to BCOAPO et al. shall be paid forthwith by Bell et al. and TCI/TCBC, in the following proportions: |
|
Bell et al. 80% TCI/TCBC 20% |
|
| Secretary General | |
| This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be viewed at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca |
- Date modified: