Search

ARCHIVED - Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2004-3

This page has been archived on the Web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This page has been archived on the Web.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 2004-3

  Ottawa, 19 March 2004
 

Public Interest Advocacy Centre's application for costs - Access to pay telephone service, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2002-6

  Reference: 8665-C12-18/02 and 4754-226

1.

By letter dated 20 August 2003, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) on behalf of the Consumer Groups applied for costs with respect to its participation in the proceeding initiated by Access to pay telephone service, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2002-6, 5 December 2002 (the Public Notice 2002-6 proceeding). In its application, PIAC suggested that the appropriate respondents to its application were Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications, and Société en commandite Télébec, (collectively, the Companies) and TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) and TELUS Communications (Québec) Inc. (collectively, TELUS).

2.

TELUS on 29 August 2003 and the Companies on 2 September 2003 wrote to the Commission stating that they had no objection to the applicant's entitlement to costs or the amount claimed.
 

The application

3.

PIAC submitted that it had met the criteria for an award of costs set out in subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules) because it represents a body of subscribers that have a clear interest in the outcome of the proceeding, it participated responsibly and it contributed to a better understanding of the issues through its participation in the Public Notice 2002-6 proceeding.

4.

In particular, PIAC prepared and filed evidence, including market research, it asked and responded to interrogatories, and provided argument on the issues raised by the Commission.

5.

PIAC requested that the Commission fix its costs at $51,616.55, consisting of $25,471.35 for legal fees, $4,400.00 for analyst fees, and $21,745.20 for disbursements. PIAC's claim included the Federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) on fees less the rebate to which PIAC is entitled in connection with the GST. PIAC filed a bill of costs with its application.

6.

As noted above, in its application PIAC submitted that the appropriate respondents in this case were TELUS and the Companies.
 

Answer

7.

In answer to the application, neither TELUS nor the Companies objected to PIAC's entitlement to costs or to the amount claimed.
 

Commission analysis and determination

8.

The Commission finds that PIAC has satisfied the criteria for an award of costs set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules. Specifically, the Commission finds that PIAC is representative of a group or class of subscribers that has an interest in the outcome of the Public Notice 2002-6 proceeding, has participated in a responsible way, and has contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission.

9.

The Commission notes that the rates claimed in respect of analyst and 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 PIAC was necessarily and reasonably incurred and should be allowed.

10.

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.

11.

The Commission finds that the appropriate respondents to PIAC's costs application are TELUS and the Companies.

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 TELUS and the Companies, the Commission finds that the responsibility for the payment of costs should be allocated as follows:
  TELUS 24%  
  The Companies 76%  

13.

The Commission notes that Bell Canada filed submissions on behalf of the Companies and TCI filed submissions 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 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

14.

The Commission approves the application by PIAC for costs with respect to its participation in the Public Notice 2002-6 proceeding.

15.

Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the costs to be paid to PIAC at $51,616.55.

16.

The Commission directs that the award of costs to PIAC be paid forthwith by TCI on behalf of TELUS and by Bell Canada on behalf of the Companies, 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: 2004-03-19

Date modified: