ARCHIVED - Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2003-1

Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2003-1

Ottawa, 4 March 2003

Consumers' Association of Canada, the National Anti-Poverty Organization and l'Union des Consommateurs application for costs - Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2002-2

Reference: 8665-C12-15/02, Bell Canada Tariff Notices 740 and 741 (National Services Tariff) and 4754-208

1.

By letter dated 19 August 2002, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), on behalf of the Consumers' Association of Canada (CAC), the National Anti-Poverty Organization and l'Union des Consommateurs (collectively, CAC et al.) applied for costs with respect to their participation in the proceeding initiated by 900 Service - Agreements and consumer safeguards, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2002-2, 9 April 2002 (the PN 2002-2 proceeding), and requested that the Commission fix their costs at $7,389.11.

2.

First Media Group Inc. (First Media) and Bell Canada, on behalf of itself, Aliant Telecom Inc., MTS Communications Inc. and TELUS Communications Inc. (collectively, the Companies) filed comments in answer to CAC et al.'s costs application.

The application

3.

CAC et al. submitted that they met the criteria for an award of costs set out in subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules) since, in their view, they represented a significant body of subscribers who will be affected by the outcome of the PN 2002-2 proceeding, they participated responsibly throughout the PN 2002-2 proceeding, and they contributed to a better understanding of the issues through their participation in the PN 2002-2 proceeding.

4.

CAC et al. requested that their costs be fixed as part of the costs award. CAC et al. submitted a bill of costs with their application, claiming an amount of $7,389.11, consisting of $7,189.11 in fees for legal counsel and $200.00 in fees for a consultant/analyst. CAC et al.'s claim included the Federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) on fees less the rebate to which CAC et al. is entitled in connection with the GST.

5.

CAC et al. submitted that the Companies were the appropriate respondents to their application and requested that Bell Canada be made responsible for the payment of the costs award.

6.

CAC et al. submitted that while, as a matter of principle, the 900 service providers should contribute to the costs of the PN 2002-2 proceeding, it was more appropriate that the Companies alone pay the costs for reasons of administrative simplicity in the collection of the relatively small amount of costs involved, and fairness among the few 900 service providers who participated in the PN 2002-2 proceeding.

Answer to the application

7.

First Media did not oppose CAC et al.'s entitlement to costs nor the amount claimed against the regulated companies.

8.

First Media submitted that the 900 service providers who participated in the PN 2002-2 proceeding should not be named respondents to CAC et al.'s application since it would be contrary to the Rules to allocate any of these costs to them.

9.

The Companies did not oppose CAC et al.'s entitlement to costs nor the amount claimed. The Companies submitted, however, that the 900 service providers who participated actively in the PN 2002-2 proceeding should be named respondents to CAC et al.'s costs application. The Companies noted that only one 900 service provider had participated substantively in the PN 2002-2 proceeding, and submitted that, therefore, the administrative burden of collecting costs should not dissuade the Commission from allocating costs to that service provider.

Commission analysis and determination

10.

The Commission finds that CAC et al. have satisfied the criteria for an award of costs set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules. Specifically, the Commission finds that CAC et al.: (a) are representative of a group or class of subscribers that has an interest in the outcome of the proceeding of such a nature that the intervener or group or class of subscribers will receive a benefit or suffer a detriment as a result of the order or decision resulting from the PN 2002-2 proceeding; (b) have participated in a responsible way; and (c) have contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission.

11.

The Commission notes that neither the Companies nor First Media opposed CAC et al.'s entitlement to costs, the fixing of costs or the amount claimed.

12.

The Commission notes that the rates claimed by CAC et al., in respect of legal and consultant/analyst fees are in accordance with the rates set out in the Legal Directorate's Guidelines for the Taxation of Costs, 15 May 1998.

13.

The Commission finds that the total amount claimed was necessary and reasonably incurred and should be allowed.

14.

The Commission is of the view that this is an appropriate case in which to fix the costs and dispense with taxation.

15.

With respect to First Media's submission that it was not an appropriate respondent, the Commission notes that subsection 56(2) of the Telecommunications Act (the Act) provides that "the Commission may order by whom and to whom any costs are to be paid". The Commission considers that the broad language of this subsection would not be preclude it from ordering First Media to pay costs.

16.

The Commission notes that First Media's participation in the PN 2002-2 proceeding was much more limited than that of the Companies, and consisted of a single letter containing its comments. The Commission also notes that only one other 900 service provider, International Service Bureau (ISB), participated in the PN 2002-2 proceeding, and that its participation was even more limited than First Media's since ISB commented on only one issue.

17.

By contrast, the Commission notes that the Companies, who responded to interrogatories and filed comments and reply comments, participated much more extensively in the PN 2002-2 proceeding. The Commission also notes that the PN 2002-2 proceeding was initiated in order to, among other things, give full consideration to Tariff Notices 740 and 741 filed by Bell Canada on behalf of the Companies.

18.

In light of the limited participation of the 900 service providers in the PN 2002-2 proceeding, the Commission finds that the appropriate respondents to CAC et al.'s costs application are the Companies.

19.

The Commission notes that Bell Canada filed submissions in the PN 2002-2 proceeding on behalf of the Companies. Consistent with its general approach set out 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, the Commission makes Bell Canada responsible for payment on behalf of the Companies and leaves it to the members of the Companies to determine the appropriate allocation of the costs among themselves.

Directions as to costs

20.

The Commission approves the application by CAC et al. for costs with respect to their participation in the PN 2002-2 proceeding.

21.

Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Act, the Commission fixes the costs to be paid to CAC et al. at $7,389.11.

22.

The Commission directs that the award of costs to CAC et al. be paid forthwith by Bell Canada on behalf of the Companies.

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