|
|
Costs Order CRTC 2001-1
|
|
|
Ottawa, 9 January 2001
|
|
|
Subject: Public Notice CRTC 2000-99 - Proceeding to determine the scope of the price cap review
|
|
|
Reference: 4754-181 and 8678-C12-09/00
|
|
|
Application for costs by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) representing Action Réseau Consommateur (ARC), the Consumers' Association of Canada (CAC), Fédération des associations coopératives d'économie familiale (FACEF) and the National Anti-Poverty Organisation (NAPO) (ARC et al.).
|
|
|
Position of parties
|
|
1.
|
By letter dated 30 October 2000, PIAC on behalf of ARC, CAC, FACEF and NAPO applied for an award of costs in respect of their intervention in the above-noted proceeding. The Commission received comments on the application from Bell Canada on behalf of itself and Island Telecom Inc., Maritime Tel & Tel Limited, MTS Communications Inc., NBTel Inc. and NewTel Communications Inc. (collectively, Bell Canada et al.), TELUS Communications Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications and the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA).
|
|
2.
|
ARC et al. submitted that they met the criteria for an award of costs, which are set out in subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules). In this respect, they noted:
|
|
|
a) they represent a body of subscribers that has a clear interest in the outcome of the proceeding;
|
|
|
b) they have participated responsibly; and
|
|
|
c) they have contributed to a better understanding of the issues through their comments in the proceeding.
|
|
3.
|
None of the parties who filed comments objected to an award of costs for ARC et al. The parties are divided, however, with respect to the question of the appropriate respondents for costs.
|
|
4.
|
Bell Canada et al. submitted that the appropriate respondents for any cost awarded would be those parties who are interested in and affected by the issues raised by the proceeding and who participated actively therein. Bell Canada et al. proposed that such costs should be apportioned among these respondents in accordance with the magnitude of the respondent's interest and participation in the proceeding.
|
|
5.
|
CCTA argued that the incumbent telephone companies will derive the principal benefit of the price cap review, and accordingly, these companies should be named as the sole respondent to ARC et al.'s request for costs.
|
|
6.
|
TELUS submitted that any costs awarded should be apportioned among all of the parties who participated actively in the proceeding through the filing of comments and/or reply comments, on the basis of revenues they derive from telecommunication activities.
|
|
7.
|
SaskTel submitted that the costs should be allocated among all interested parties that participated actively in this proceeding and which have a significant interest in the outcome of this proceeding.
|
|
|
Commission determination
|
|
8.
|
The Commission considers that ARC et al. has satisfied the criteria for an award of costs set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules. Accordingly, an award of costs is warranted in the circumstances.
|
|
9.
|
With respect to the appropriate respondents to ARC et al.'s application, the Commission notes that in previous proceedings relating to price cap regulation (Telecom Public Notice CRTC 97-11) the Commission had found that the incumbent telephone companies (at that time "the federally regulated" Stentor members) were the appropriate respondents given they would derive the principle benefit of price cap regulation.
|
|
10.
|
In light of that fact, their interest in the outcome, their active participation and the national scope of the interests represented by ARC et al., the Commission considers that Bell Canada et al., TELUS and SaskTel are the appropriate respondents to ARC et al.'s costs.
|
|
|
Direction as to costs
|
|
11.
|
The application for an award of costs in respect of the above-mentioned proceeding is approved.
|
|
12.
|
Consistent with the reasons set out above, the Commission directs that costs awarded to ARC et al. be paid by the following respondents, in the following proportions:
|
|
|
|
Bell Canada, on behalf of itself and Island Telecom, MTT, MTS, NBTel and NewTel
|
65%
|
|
Bell Canada
|
55%
|
|
Island Telecom
|
0.5%
|
|
MTT
|
2.5%
|
|
MTS
|
3.5%
|
|
NBTel
|
2.5%
|
|
NewTel
|
1%
|
|
TELUS
|
30%
|
|
SaskTel
|
5%
|
|
|
13.
|
Costs awarded herein shall be subject to taxation in accordance with the Rules.
|
|
14.
|
Costs awarded herein shall be taxed by Natalie Turmel.
|
|
15.
|
ARC et al. shall, within 30 days of the issue of this order, submit a bill of costs and an affidavit of disbursements directly to the taxing officer, serving a copy on each respondent.
|
|
16.
|
The respondents may, within two weeks of receipt of those documents, file comments directly with the taxing officer with respect to the costs claimed, serving a copy on ARC et al.
|
|
17.
|
ARC et al. may, within two weeks of receipt of any comments by the respondents, file a reply to the respondents' comments, serving a copy on each of the respondents in question.
|
|
18.
|
All documents to be filed or served by a specific date must actually be received, and not merely sent, by that date.
|
|
|
Secretary General
|
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
|