|
Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2003-4
|
|
Ottawa, 25 March 2003
|
|
Public Interest Law Centre's application for costs - Public Interest Advocacy Centre's Part VII Application regarding Basic Toll Schedule Disclosure
|
|
Reference: 8665-P8-01/02 and 4754-213
|
|
1.
|
By letter dated 27 November 2002, the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC) applied for costs with respect to its participation in the proceeding initiated by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre's (PIAC's) Part VII Application regarding Basic Toll Schedule (BTS) disclosure by incumbent local exchange carriers (the BTS Disclosure Proceeding) and requested that the Commission fix its costs at $713.00.
|
|
2.
|
By letter dated 10 December 2002, Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc. (MTS) and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (collectively, the Companies) filed comments in answer to PILC's costs application.
|
|
3.
|
By letter dated 17 December 2002, PILC filed reply comments.
|
|
The application
|
|
4.
|
PILC submitted that it met the criteria for an award of costs set out in section 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules) because with respect to the BTS Disclosure Proceeding, it represented a class of consumers, MTS residential customers, who have an interest in the outcome of the proceeding, it participated responsibly and it contributed to a better understanding of the issues.
|
|
5.
|
PILC submitted that it contributed to a better understanding of the issues in that it provided evidence that the failure to disclose BTS rates were not isolated incidents as MTS claimed and further showed that MTS' customers were not given either accurate or sufficient information about long distance rates in order to make informed decisions.
|
|
6.
|
PILC submitted that this was an appropriate case for the costs to be fixed as part of the costs award, given the short duration of the proceeding and the relatively small fees incurred. PILC submitted a bill of costs with its application, claiming an amount of $713.00 for legal fees.
|
|
7.
|
PILC did not name any respondents, but copied its costs application to the Companies and TELUS Communications Inc.
|
|
Answer to the application
|
|
8.
|
The Companies opposed PILC's entitlement to costs. In the alternative, the Companies submitted that if an award of costs was made, MTS should be named as the respondent because MTS was the focus of PILC's submissions in the BTS Disclosure Proceeding.
|
|
9.
|
The Companies opposed PILC's costs application for the same reasons that MTS submitted in opposing PILC's intervention in the BTS Disclosure Proceeding. According to the Companies, PILC's intervention: was out of process because it was made outside the time period permitted by the Rules; was duplicative; added no new arguments or evidence to the record; and did not further the Commission's understanding of the issues.
|
|
Reply
|
|
10.
|
PILC submitted that its evidence was supplementary to PIAC's and was useful because the evidence cast doubt on many of the claims made by MTS in its answer to PIAC's submissions in the BTS Disclosure Proceeding.
|
|
11.
|
PILC submitted that it was able to show that failures to disclose the BTS rates were not isolated incidents, which could be blamed on human error. PILC submitted that errors and unclear advice given by MTS Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) continued after MTS said it took steps to ensure its CSRs were familiar with company policy and after PIAC filed its Part VII application in relation to the BTS Disclosure Proceeding.
|
|
12.
|
PILC submitted that the fact it was granted intervener status in the BTS Disclosure Proceeding confirmed that its contribution was relevant and would lead to a better understanding of the issues.
|
|
13.
|
PILC agreed with the Companies that MTS should be named as the respondent to PILC's costs application.
|
|
Commission analysis and determination
|
|
14.
|
The Commission notes that the fact that PILC was permitted to file an intervention does not mean that the Commission is automatically of the view that the intervener's contribution was relevant or had brought a better understanding of the issues to the Commission.
|
|
15.
|
The Commission notes that in the BTS Disclosure Proceeding, PILC provided information on the issue of MTS practices relating to a period subsequent to the period covered by PIAC's evidence. The Commission considers that PILC added new evidence to the record which was not duplicative.
|
|
16.
|
The Commission finds that PILC has met the criteria for an award of costs set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules. Specifically, the Commission finds that PILC: (a) represented a class of subscribers that has an interest in the outcome of the proceeding of such a nature that the group of subscribers will receive a benefit or suffer a detriment as a result of the order or decision resulting from the BTS Disclosure Proceeding; (b) participated in a responsible way; and (c) contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission.
|
|
17.
|
The Commission is of the view that this is an appropriate case in which to fix the costs and dispense with taxation in accordance with the streamlined procedure set out in New procedure for Telecom costs awards, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2002-5, 7 November 2002.
|
|
18.
|
The Commission notes that the rate claimed in respect of legal fees is in accordance with the rate set out in the Legal Directorate's Guidelines for the Taxation of Costs, 15 May 1998 and is appropriate.
|
|
19.
|
The Commission finds that the total amount claimed by PILC was necessarily and reasonably incurred and should be allowed.
|
|
20.
|
The Commission finds that the appropriate respondent to PILC's costs application is MTS.
|
|
Directions as to costs
|
|
21.
|
The Commission approves the application by PILC for costs with respect to its participation in the BTS Disclosure proceeding.
|
|
22.
|
Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the costs to be paid to PILC at $713.00.
|
|
23.
|
The Commission directs that the award of costs to PILC be paid forthwith by MTS.
|
|
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: 2003-03-25