Search

ARCHIVED - Costs Order CRTC 2001-4

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

 

Costs Order CRTC 2001-4

  Ottawa, 5 March 2001
 

Subject: Forbearance of ILECs outside ILEC territory 

  Reference: 8640-T42-01/00 and 4754-184
  Application for costs by Action Réseau Consommateur et al. (ARC et al.)
 

Position of ARC et al.

1.

By letter dated 20 December 2000, ARC et al. applied for an award of costs in relation to their participation in the above-referenced proceeding initiated by Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2000-98.

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, ARC et al. 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.

ARC et al.requested that given the amount of costs in question and the straightforward nature of the bill, their costs be fixed as part of the costs award determination, so as to dispense with the need for a separate taxation process.

4.

ARC et al. requested that the Commission fix the amount of costs to be paid at $3857.96 (16.3 hours at $175/hour for consultant fees, 5 hours at $175/hour for legal fees, and taxes).

5.

ARC et al. finally submitted that the appropriate respondents to this cost application are TELUS, Bell and SaskTel. A copy of the application was filed with TELUS, Bell and SaskTel.
 

SaskTel's comments

6.

On 15 January 2001, SaskTel filed comments in response to ARC et al's application. In its comments, SaskTel did not contest ARC et al's application for the award of cost. However, it did raise two issues:
 

Rate claimed by Roger Higgin

7.

SaskTel objected to the rate of $175/hour claimed by Roger Higgin for consultant fees in the bill of costs. SaskTel stated that pursuant to the Guidelines for the Taxation of Costs (the Guidelines) which have been adopted by the Commission's Legal Directorate, analysts or consultants with 0-4 years experience are eligible to receive $90/hour in fees. In ARC et al.'s bill of costs, Mr. Higgin has indicated that he has only 6 months of experience as an analyst/consultant. Therefore SaskTel submitted that the amount claimed in the bill of costs for the work performed by Mr. Higgin should be $90/hour.
 

Appropriate respondents

8.

With regard to the appropriate parties to pay the costs awarded, SaskTel noted that this proceeding was initiated to address TELUS' application for forbearance outside of its ILEC territory in light of TELUS' anticipated corporate restructure. SaskTel stated that it merely requested that, if the Commission should grant the requested forbearance to TELUS, SaskTel be accorded similar forbearance. SaskTel does not currently provide telecommunications services outside of its ILEC territory. SaskTel therefore stated that the majority of the cost should be allocated to TELUS.
  ARC et al.'s reply to SaskTel's comments

9.

In reply to SaskTel's comments, ARC et al. filed a revised claim sheet for Mr. Higgin. It stated that, in fact, Mr. Higgin is a senior consultant with decades of relevant experience and that the CRTC permitted rate is actually well below his market rate. Mr. Higgin's resume was filed in support of ARC et al.'s submissions.
 

Commission determination

10.

The Commission considers that ARC et al. have satisfied the criteria for an award of costs set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules.

11.

The Commission also considers that this is an appropriate case in which to dispense with taxation and fix the costs in accordance with the streamlined procedure set out in New procedure for Telecom costs awards, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 98-11, dated 15 May 1998.

12.

The Commission is of the view that the amount claimed by ARC et al. was reasonably and necessarily incurred and should be allowed.

13.

With regard to the rate claimed by ARC et al. for Mr. Higgin's participation in this proceeding, the Commission is of the view that the requested rate is appropriate in the specific circumstances of this case.

14.

Considering the relatively small amount of costs at issue, and the active role played by Bell Canada and TELUS Communications Inc. in this proceeding, the Commission is of the view that it would be appropriate in this case to name Bell Canada and TELUS Communications Inc. as respondents . Each respondent should pay 50% of the costs on behalf of the companies they have represented in this proceeding.
 

Direction as to costs

15.

The application by ARC et al. for an award of costs in respect of the above-mentioned proceeding is approved. Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the amount payable at $3857.96.

16.

The Commission directs that the costs awarded and fixed herein be paid forthwith by Bell Canada and TELUS Communications Inc. Each company shall pay 50% of the costs fixed herein on behalf of the companies they have represented in this proceeding.
  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

Date Modified: 2001-03-05

Date modified: