ARCHIVED - Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2002-8

Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2002-8

Ottawa, 7 June 2002

Consumers' Association of Canada - Alberta application for costs - Public Notice CRTC 2001-37

Reference: 8678-C12-11/01 and 4754-197

Background

1.

By letter dated 16 November 2001, the Consumers' Association of Canada - Alberta (CAC Alta) applied for costs associated with its participation in the proceeding initiated by Price cap review and related issues, Public Notice CRTC 2001-37, 13 March 2001 (the PN 2001-37 proceeding).

Position of parties

2.

CAC Alta submitted that it had met the criteria for an award of costs set out in section 44 (1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules). In particular, CAC Alta argued that:

3.

CAC Alta also submitted that it had been able to apply its resources to its intervention more efficiently by consulting with other intervenors like the Action Réseau Consommateur (ARC), the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Fédération des associations coopératives d'économie familiale, and the National Anti-Poverty Organization (ARC et al.).

4.

In its submission dated 26 November 2001, TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) stated that it did not oppose CAC Alta's application for costs, but that it reserved its right to comment on the costs that would be claimed when CAC Alta submitted its bill of costs and application for disbursements. TCI also argued that the appropriate respondents to CAC Alta's application were Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc. (MTS), Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel), Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant Telecom), TCI, AT&T Canada Inc. (AT&T Canada), Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net), Rogers Wireless Inc. (RWI) and GT Group Telecom Services Inc. (Group Telecom).

5.

By letter dated 27 November 2001, RWI filed comments in response to CAC Alta's application. RWI stated that it did not object to CAC Alta's application, but it did assert that the appropriate respondents to the application were the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) as they would be the primary beneficiaries of the price cap regime.

6.

By letter dated 12 December 2001, Bell Canada, MTS, SaskTel, Aliant Telecom (collectively the Companies) filed comments in response to CAC Alta's application. The Companies agreed with TCI's position with respect to the respondents to CAC Alta's application. However, the Companies suggested that, as the majority of CAC Alta's submissions had been directed at evidence filed by TCI, that it should bear a larger share of the costs.

7.

The Companies stated that CAC Alta's participation in the PN 2001-37 proceeding had been limited to comments, interrogatories and oral submissions that were brief and general in nature. The Companies submitted that, in In re: Price cap regulation and related issues - Telecom Public Notice CRTC 96-8, Telecom Costs Order CRTC 97-9, 3 March 1997 (Costs Order 97-9), the Commission denied CAC Alta's cost application for submissions that the Companies considered to be similar to those submitted in the PN 2001-37 proceeding.

8.

The Companies questioned whether CAC Alta had in fact contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission in the PN 2001-37 proceeding.

9.

The Companies stated that, should the Commission choose to award CAC Alta some or all of its costs, they reserved their right, on receipt of a bill of costs and affidavit of disbursements, to comment on the amounts claimed, and on the allocation of those amounts amongst respondents.

10.

By letter dated 4 February 2002, Group Telecom filed comments with respect to CAC Alta's application. Group Telecom submitted that while it did not object to CAC Alta's application, it did not feel it was an appropriate respondent to the cost application. Group Telecom stated that its participation in the PN 2001-37 proceeding had been focused on three issues pertaining to the local business market: namely, the ILECs' use of long-term contracts; the incentives for ILECs' regulatory compliance; and ILECs' affiliate activities within the ILEC serving territories.

11.

Group Telecom submitted that it does not provide service in the residential market and was not impacted in any manner by CAC Alta's participation in the PN 2001-37 proceeding. Group Telecom argued that CAC Alta had not made submissions on Group Telecom's evidence, had submitted no interrogatories to Group Telecom, and had not examined Group Telecom's panel at the hearing. In Group Telecom's view, it should not be responsible for any of CAC Alta's costs.

12.

By letter dated 21 December 2001, CAC Alta filed reply comments dealing with the arguments raised by the Companies. CAC Alta submitted that in the PN 2001-37 proceeding, it had been able to provide the Commission with its legal and technical understanding of telecommunications regulation and the price cap regime.

13.

CAC Alta argued that it had been faced with the challenging decision of how to allocate its limited resources in order to participate in the PN 2001-37 proceeding and had done so in a manner that was designed to not duplicate interrogatories or evidence filed by other consumer groups. CAC Alta noted that its costs would be proportionate to its involvement and could be commented on by parties that reserved the right to do so.

Commission determinations

14.

The Commission finds that CAC Alta represents a class of subscribers - residential subscribers - that has an interest in the outcome of the PN 2001-37 proceeding.

15.

The Commission finds that CAC Alta participated in the proceeding in a responsible manner. In particular, the Commission notes CAC Alta's efforts to avoid duplication with the evidence and interrogatories filed by other consumer groups.

16.

The Commission has considered the arguments filed by the Companies with respect to whether CAC Alta's submissions furthered the Commission's understanding of the issues. The Commission finds that CAC Alta's interrogatories and arguments served to bring further details of TCI's proposals to light. CAC Alta was able to use this information, in its submissions, to address issues of national concern that were relevant to all participants in the proceeding.

17.

The Commission concludes, therefore, that CAC Alta did contribute to the Commission's better understanding of the issues.

18.

With respect to the issue of the appropriate respondents, the Commission finds that the scope of CAC Alta's comments and the issues it addressed were not limited to Alberta and/or TCI. CAC Alta provided comments on issues of national significance and of concern to all subscribers, not merely those resident in Alberta.

19.

The Commission has considered the arguments raised by RWI and Group Telecom that they are not appropriate respondents to this application. The Commission notes that both RWI and Group Telecom have a significant interest in the outcome of this proceeding and participated extensively in the proceeding. The Commission further notes that it considered and rejected similar arguments from RWI in Action Réseau Consommateur et al. application for costs - Price cap review proceeding, Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2002-2, 1 March 2002.

20.

Given that CAC Alta addressed issues of national significance, that RWI and Group Telecom participated extensively in the proceeding and that these two companies have a significant interest in the outcome, the Commission finds that RWI and Group Telecom are appropriate respondents to this application.

21.

The Commission finds therefore that the appropriate respondents to this application are the Companies, TCI, AT&T Canada, Group Telecom, RWI and Call-Net.

Direction as to costs

22.

The Commission approves CAC Alta's application for costs in this proceeding.

23.

The Commission directs that the award of costs to CAC Alta shall be paid by the named respondents in the following proportions:

AT&T Canada

1%

Call-Net

1%

Group Telecom

1%

RWI

2%

Bell Canada

55%

Aliant Telecom

5%

MTS

5%

SaskTel

5%

TCI

25%

24.

The Commission notes that, in this case, it is departing from its general approach, articulated in Action Réseau Consommateur, the Consumers' Association of Canada, Fédération des associations coopératives d'économie familiale and the National Anti-Poverty Organization application for costs, Public Notice CRTC 2001-60, Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2002-4, 24 April 2002, of making Bell Canada responsible for payment on behalf of the Companies. The Commission considers this departure to be appropriate as the individual members of the Companies also filed significant submissions separately from the group submissions.

25.

The costs awarded herein shall be subject to taxation in accordance with the Rules.

26.

The costs awarded herein shall be taxed by Natalie Turmel.

27.

CAC Alta shall, within 30 days of the issuance of this order, submit a bill of costs and an affidavit of disbursements directly to the taxing officer, serving a copy on the respondents for costs.

28.

The respondents for costs may, within two weeks of receipt of those documents, file comments directly with the taxing officer in response to the claim for costs, serving a copy on CAC Alta.

29.

CAC Alta may, within two weeks of receipt of any comments submitted by the respondents for costs, file a reply to such comments directly with the taxing officer, serving a copy on the respondents.

30.

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