Search

ARCHIVED - Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2004-10

This page has been archived on the Web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This page has been archived on the Web.

 

Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2004-10

  Ottawa, 30 July 2004
 

Application for costs by the British Columbia Old Age Pensioners' Organization et al. - Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2003-6

  Reference: 8665-C12-200307365 and 4754-231

1.

By letter dated 10 March 2004, the British Columbia Old Age Pensioners' Organization et al. (BCOAPO et al.) applied for costs with respect to its participation in the proceeding initiated by Consumer bill of rights, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2003-6, 13 June 2003 (the Public Notice 2003-6 proceeding).

2.

On 6 April 2004, Bell Canada filed comments on behalf of Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications and Société en commandite Télébec (collectively the Companies), and on behalf of TELUS Communications Inc. and TELUS Communications (Québec) Inc. (collectively TELUS) in answer to the application of BCOAPO et al.
 

The application

3.

BCOAPO et al. submitted that they had met the criteria for an award of costs set out in subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules) as it represents a group of subscribers that has an interest in the outcome of the Public Notice 2003-6 proceeding, they had participated responsibly in the Public Notice 2003-6 proceeding, and they had contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission through their participation in the Public Notice 2003-6 proceeding.

4.

In particular, BCOAPO et al. submitted that their group consists of the BC Old Age Pensioners' Organization, Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations of BC, federated anti-poverty groups of BC, Senior Citizens' Association of BC, West End Seniors' Network, End Legislated Poverty, and the Tenants Rights Action Coalition who collectively represent many thousands of consumers, seniors, low-income persons and information rights advocates throughout the province of British Columbia. BCOAPO et al. submitted that they had participated in a responsible manner as they had complied with all applicable rules and directions and made efforts to minimize costs, particularly by coordinating their intervention with other consumer groups filing evidence.

5.

BCOAPO et al. requested that the Commission fix their costs at $8,410.14, consisting of $8,265.47 for legal fees and $144.67 for disbursements. Their claim included the Federal Goods and Services Tax on fees. BCOAPO et al. filed a bill of costs with its application.

6.

BCOAPO et al. submitted that the appropriate respondents in this case were the Companies and TELUS.

7.

BCOAPO et al. suggested that the responsibility for payment of costs should be divided among the respondents in proportion to their revenues.
 

Answer

8.

In answer to the application, the Companies and TELUS submitted that they did not oppose BCOAPO et al.'s entitlement to the amount claimed. The Companies and TELUS submitted that the appropriate respondents and each respondent's share of any costs award made by the Commission should be determined by each respondent's interest and participation in the proceeding.
 

Commission analysis and determination

9.

The Commission finds that BCOAPO 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 BCOAPO et al. are representative of a group or class of subscribers that has an interest in the outcome of the proceeding, have participated in a responsible way, and have contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission.

10.

The Commission notes that the rates claimed in respect of legal fees are in accordance with the rates set out in the Legal Directorate's Guidelines for the Taxation of Costs, revised as of 15 May 1998. The Commission also finds that the total amount claimed by BCOAPO et al. was necessarily and reasonably incurred and should be allowed.

11.

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.

12.

The Commission notes that it has, in previous decisions, allocated the responsibility for the payment of costs among respondents on the basis of the respondents' telecommunications operating revenues (TORs), as an indicator of the relative size and interest of the parties involved in the proceeding. The Commission is of the view that, in the present circumstances, it is appropriate to apportion the costs among the respondents in proportion to their TORs, as reported in their most recent audited financial statements. Given the relative differences in telecommunications revenues between the Companies and TELUS, the Commission finds that the responsibility for the payment of costs should be allocated as follows:
    The Companies 76%
    TELUS 24%

13.

Given the small size of the costs award in this case, the Commission finds that it would impose an unnecessary administrative burden on BCOAPO et al. to require the collection of small amounts from the seven telecommunications service providers who participated in the Public Notice 2003-6 proceeding. Consistent with 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, the Commission makes Bell Canada responsible for payment on behalf of the Companies and TELUS Communications Inc. responsible for payment on behalf of TELUS, and leaves it to the members of the Companies and TELUS to determine the appropriate allocation of the costs among themselves.
 

Direction as to costs

14.

The Commission approves the application by BCOAPO et al. for costs with respect to their participation in the Public Notice 2003-6 proceeding.

15.

Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the costs to be paid to BCOAPO et al. at $8,410.14.

16.

The Commission directsthat the award of costs to BCOAPO et al. be paid forthwith by Bell Canada on behalf of the Companies and TELUS Communications Inc. on behalf of TELUS, according to the proportions set out in paragraph 12.
  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: 2004-07-30

Date modified: