Search

ARCHIVED - Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2004-16

This page has been archived on the Web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This page has been archived on the Web.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 2004-16

  Ottawa, 25 November 2004
 

Application for costs by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre on behalf of the Consumer Groups - Amendments to Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2003-8, Review of price floor safeguards for retail tariffed services and related issues, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2003-10

  Reference: 8663-C12-200318130 and 4754-237

1.

By letter dated 6 August 2004, and amended on 27 August 2004, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), on behalf of itself, the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Union des consommateurs and the National Anti-Poverty Organization of the Consumer Groups (the Consumer Groups), applied for costs with respect to their joint intervention in the proceeding initiated by Amendments to Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2003-8, Review of price floor safeguards for retail tariffed services and related issues, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2003-10, 8 December 2003 (the PN 2003-10 proceeding).

2.

By letter dated 16 August 2004, the Canadian Cable Television Association now known as the Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association (CCTA) filed comments in answer to PIAC's application for costs. TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) and TELUS Communications (Québec) Inc. (TELUS Québec) (collectively, TELUS), jointly submitted their response to the Consumer Groups' costs application by letter dated 16 August 2004. By letter dated 1 September 2004, Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant Telecom), Bell Canada, MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream), Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel) and Télébec, société en commandite (Télébec) (collectively, the Companies) jointly submitted their reply to the costs application.
 

The application

3.

PIAC submitted that the Consumer Groups had met the criteria for an award of costs as set out in subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules) as they represented a body of subscribers that had a clear interest in the outcome of the proceeding, they participated responsibly by co-ordinating their intervention with other subscriber group interveners which helped to minimize duplication of effort and focus on the submissions and they contributed, through their comments in the proceeding, to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission.

4.

PIAC requested that the Commission fix its costs at $26,878.36, which included the Federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) on certain fees less the rebate to which they are entitled in connection with the GST. The breakdown of the fees, inclusive of the respective GST and rebate portions, includes $12,378.60 for legal fees and $14,499.76 for consulting/analyst fees. PIAC filed a bill of costs with their application.
5. Although PIAC made no submissions as to the appropriate respondent in this case, it did note that the proceeding was an industry-wide one that was of principal concern to the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) who were made party to the proceeding by the Commission.
 

Answer

6. In answer to PIAC's application, the CCTA replied that it did not have any comments with respect to the appropriateness of a cost award to the Consumer Groups for its intervention in PN 2003-8/2003-10. The CCTA did submit, however, that it was not an appropriate respondent in the costs application. The CCTA stated that the appropriate respondents were the ILECs, who were made party to the proceeding by the Commission, as the proceeding was of principal concern to them because the outcome of the proceeding would directly affect the pricing and packaging of their regulated services. In the event that the Commission did determine that parties other than the ILECs should be named respondents, CCTA submitted that the substantial majority of the costs should be allocated to the ILECs, consistent with their position in the local exchange telephony market.
7. TELUS did not oppose the Consumer Groups'entitlement to costs or the amount claimed. TELUS did submit, however, that the following parties should be identified as cost respondents in this matter: the ILECs (including MTS Allstream, both in its capacity as an entrant and ILEC), Call-Net Enterprises Inc. (Call-Net), the CCTA, LondonConnect Inc. and Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) (TELUS noted that at paragraph 43 of PN 2003-10, the Commission made a Rogers Part VII Application part of the record of the PN 2003-10 proceeding).  TELUS submitted that such a determination would accord with the Commission's stated position in Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2002-15, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the National Anti-Poverty Organization and Action Réseau Consommateur applications for costs - Order CRTC 2000-393, paragraph 35, 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." TELUS further submitted that costs should be apportioned amongst cost respondents on a revenue basis.
8. The Companies did not oppose the Consumer Groups'entitlement to costs or the amount claimed. The Companies did submit, however, that the following parties should be identified as cost respondents in this matter: the Companies (including MTS Allstream, both in its capacity as an entrant and as an ILEC, and noted that before their combination into MTS Allstream MTS Communications Inc. participated in the proceeding along with the other ILECs while Allstream Corp. participated along with Call-Net), TCI and TELUS Québec, Call-Net, the CCTA, LondonConnect Inc. and Rogers. The Companies submitted that such a determination would be consistent with the Commission's approach to the identification of the appropriate respondents to a costs award. The Companies further submitted that 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 PIAC, on behalf of the Consumer Groups, has met the criteria for a costs award as set out in section 44(1) of the Rules. Specifically, the Commission finds that PIAC and the other Consumer Groups: (a) represent various groups of subscribers that have an interest in the outcome of the PN 2003-10 proceeding of such a nature that they will receive a benefit or suffer a detriment as a result of the order or decision resulting from the proceeding; (b) have participated in a responsible way; and (c) have contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission.
10. The Commission notes that the rates claimed in respect of the legal and consulting/analyst 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 PIAC, on behalf of the Consumer Groups, 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. 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.
13. While both incumbents and entrants are potentially affected by the issues in this proceeding and many of them have participated actively, the Commission finds that as the purpose of the proceeding is to determine the modifications required, if any, to certain aspects of the regulatory framework applicable to the incumbents, the incumbents are the appropriate respondents to PIAC's costs application. Specifically, the appropriate incumbent respondents should be the Companies (Aliant Telecom, Bell Canada, MTS Allstream, SaskTel, and Télébec) and TELUS (TCI and TELUS Québec).
14. 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%
15. The Commission notes, however, that Bell Canada filed submissions in the costs proceeding on behalf of the Companies and TCI filed submissions in the costs proceeding on behalf of TELUS. 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 the payment on behalf of the Companies and TCI 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

16. The Commission approves the application by PIAC, on behalf of the Consumer Groups, for an award of costs with respect to their participation in the PN 2003-10 proceeding.
17. Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the costs to be paid to PIAC, on behalf of the Consumer Groups, at $26,878.36.
18. The Commission directs that the award of costs to PIAC, on behalf of the Consumer Groups, be paid forthwith by Bell Canada, on behalf of the Companies, and by TCI, on behalf of TELUS, according to the proportions set out in paragraph 14.
  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: 2004-11-25

Date modified: