ARCHIVED - Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2002-6

This page has been archived on the Web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.

Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2002-6

Ottawa, 8 May 2002

Action Réseau Consommateur, the Consumers' Association of Canada and Fédération des associations coopératives d'économie familiale du Québec application for costs - Public Notice CRTC 2001-61

Reference: 4754-193 and 8663-C12-05/01



By letter dated 31 October 2001, Action Réseau Consommateur (ARC), the Consumers' Association of Canada and Fédération des associations coopératives d'économie familiale du Québec (ARC et al.) applied for an award of costs associated with their participation in the proceeding initiated by New regulatory framework for small independent telephone companies and related issues, Public Notice CRTC 2001-61, 30 May 2001 (PN 2001-61).

Positions of parties


ARC et al. submitted that they had met the criteria for an award of costs set out in section 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules).


ARC et al. suggested, in particular, that their participation should help identify and reinforce the consumer and public interest concerns associated with the balancing of consumer consistency and small company concerns.


ARC et al. requested that their costs be fixed as part of the cost award at $12,011.34. ARC et al. provided a bill of costs with their application.


ARC et al. submitted that the appropriate respondents are the Canadian Alliance of Publicly-Owned Telecommunications Systems (CAPTS), Ontario Telecommunications Association (OTA), Société d'administration des tarifs d'accès des télécommunicateurs (SATAT), Prince Rupert City Telephones (CityTel), La Compagnie de Téléphone de Lambton Inc. (Lambton), La Compagnie de Téléphone de St-Victor (St-Victor), Le Téléphone de St-Éphrem Inc. (St-Éphrem), Northern Telephone Limited (Northern) and O.N.Telcom (the Respondents).


Finally, ARC et al. proposed that the costs be paid in equal amounts by the participating industry stakeholders.


None of the parties who filed comments objected to an award of costs for ARC et al., the fixing of costs by the Commission or the amount claimed.


In letters dated 5 November 2001 and 12 November 2001, respectively, SATAT and Northern submitted that the relative size of the respondent telephone companies must be taken into consideration when apportioning the costs. SATAT and Northern proposed that the Respondents should be ordered to pay costs in proportion to their respective total network access services (NAS) count or that of their member independent telephone companies (ITCs).


The Commission did not receive comments from any other party to the PN 2001-61 proceeding, and did not receive any reply comments from ARC et al.

Commission determination


The Commission finds that ARC et al.'s application meets the criteria for an award of costs under section 44(1) of the Rules.


The Commission is of the view 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, 15 May 1998.


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


With respect to the issue of the appropriate respondents, the Commission notes that it has generally determined that the appropriate respondents to an award of costs are the parties who are affected by the issues and have participated actively in the proceeding.


The Commission notes that CAPTS participated in the PN 2001-61 proceeding on behalf of Dryden Municipal Telephone System, Kenora Municipal Telephone System, and the Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay - Telephone Department (Thunder Bay Telephone). The Commission also notes that OTA participated in the PN 2001-61 proceeding on behalf of its 20 member companies and that SATAT participated on behalf of its 10 member companies.


The Commission finds that the appropriate respondents to ARC et al.'s cost application are CAPTS, OTA and SATAT in the name of their members, Lambton, St-Victor, St-Éphrem, CityTel, Northern, and O.N.Telcom, all of which have significant interest in the outcome and participated actively in the PN 2001-61 proceeding. Accordingly, the Commission finds that they are the appropriate respondents to ARC et al.'s application for costs.


The Commission also notes that in the case of Regulatory framework for the independent telephone companies in Quebec and Ontario (Except Ontario Northland Transportation Commission) - Telecom Public Notice CRTC 95-15, Telecom Costs Order CRTC 96-14, 7 August 1996, the Commission apportioned costs in proportion to the telecommunications operating revenues (TORS) of the Canadian ITCs that were affected by the proceeding.


The Commission considers that using TORs to apportion costs in this instance would be consistent with the Commission's practice of using TORs where there are numerous respondents. The TORs provide a reasonable indicator of the relative size and interest of the parties involved in the proceeding. Moreover, in this case, the Commission considers that TORs constitute a better indicator of the parties' relative interest than the number of NAS, as submitted by SATAT and Northern, given the fact that O.N.Telcom, which participated actively in the PN 2001-61 proceeding, is primarily a toll carrier and has a very limited number of NAS.


Accordingly, the Commission concludes that costs are to be apportioned among the respondents in proportion to their 2000 TORs, and in the case of CAPTS, OTA and SATAT, their respective members' 2000 TORs as follows:



















Direction as to costs


The Commission approves ARC et al.'s application for an award of costs in this proceeding. Pursuant to section 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the costs to be paid to ARC et al. at $12,011.34.


For the reasons mentioned above, the Commission directs that the costs to ARC et al. be paid forthwith by CAPTS, CityTel, Lambton, Northern, O.N.Telcom, OTA, SATAT, St-Éphrem and St-Victor according to the ratio noted in paragraph 18.

Secretary General

This document is available in alternative format upon request and may also be examined at the following Internet site:

Date Modified: 2002-05-08

Date modified: