Search

ARCHIVED - Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2004-7

This page has been archived on the Web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This page has been archived on the Web.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 2004-7

  Ottawa, 23 April 2004
 

L'Union des consommateurs application for costs - Part VII Application by West Coast Teltech Ltd. and A & A Call Link Telesolutions Ltd. for stay and review and vary of Telecom Decisions CRTC 2002-56 and 2003-27

  Reference: 8662-W32-200308131, 8680-W32-200307315 and 4754-224

1.

By letter dated 8 August 2003, l'Union des consommateurs (UDC) applied for costs with respect to its participation in the proceedings initiated by West Coast Teltech Ltd. (West Coast) and A & A Call Link Telesolutions Ltd. (A & A) for a review and vary and a stay of Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-56, Framework for the expansion of local calling areas and Telecom Decision CRTC 2003-27, Follow-up proceeding to Telecom Decision CRTC 2002-56 - Foregone toll revenue compensation for expanded local calling areas (the proceedings).

2.

On 18 August 2003, West Coast and A & A filed comments in answer to UDC's application. On 18 August 2003, Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, MTS Communications Inc., NorthernTel Limited Partnership, Northwestel Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications, and Société en commandite Télébec (collectively, the Companies) also filed comments in answer to UDC's application. On 22 August 2003, UDC filed reply comments.
 

The application

3.

UDC 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) as it represents a group of subscribers that had an interest in the outcome of the proceedings, it had participated responsibly in the proceedings, and had contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission through its participation in the proceedings.

4.

In particular, UDC submitted that it contributed to a better understanding of the issues by putting forward the view that although the Commission's interpretation of the definition of what constituted long distance toll providers was technically correct, an examination of the market revealed that West Coast and A & A were in fact providing what amounted to a toll service. UDC argued that clarification was therefore necessary.

5.

UDC requested that the Commission fix its costs at $3,880.78 for consultant and analyst fees. UDC's claim included the Federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) on fees less the rebate to which UDC is entitled in connection with GST. UDC filed a bill of costs with its application.

6.

UDC submitted that half of its costs should be the responsibility of West Coast and A & A and that half of its costs should be the responsibility of the Companies and TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS) divided according to their telecommunications operating revenues (TORs).
 

Answers

7.

In answer to the application, the Companies, West Coast and A & A did not comment on the appropriateness of a costs award.

8.

The Companies submitted that any award of costs should be paid solely by West Coast and A & A on the basis that West Coast and A & A participated extensively in the proceedings and have a significant interest in the outcome while the Companies had almost no participation and a limited interest in the outcome.

9.

West Coast and A & A submitted that the proper apportionment of any cost award would be as suggested by UDC, namely that half the costs should be the responsibility of West Coast and A & A and that half be the responsibility of the Companies and TELUS. According to West Coast and A & A, the Companies participated in the process in a meaningful way and contributed to a better understanding of the issues, most notably by identifying pitfalls associated with the implementation of the new framework when confusion remained regarding the appropriate recipients of compensation. According to West Coast and A & A, TELUS had a clear interest in the proceedings and participated fully in the process.
 

Reply

10.

In reply, UDC agreed with West Coast and A & A with regard to the apportionment of the liability for costs. It submitted that it would be appropriate for the Companies and TELUS to pay a portion of any award of costs to UDC as they had a significant interest in the outcome of the proceedings and had contributed to the process.
 

Commission analysis and determination

11.

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

12.

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

13.

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.

14.

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 proceedings.

15.

The Commission notes, however, that it has recognized the fact that if too large a number of respondents are named, the applicant may have to collect small amounts from many respondents.

16.

Given the small size of the costs award in this case, the Commission finds that it would impose an unnecessary administrative burden on UDC to require the collection of small amounts from the 10 telecommunications service providers who participated in the proceedings.

17.

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

18.

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' 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 revenue between the Companies and TELUS, the Commission finds that the responsibility for the payment of costs should be allocated as follows:
  The Companies 80%
  TELUS 20%

19.

The Commission notes that Bell Canada filed submissions on behalf of the Companies. 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. The Commission finds it appropriate to leave to the members of the Companies to determine among themselves the appropriate allocation of their share among themselves.
 

Direction as to costs

20.

The Commission approves the application by UDC for costs with respect to its participation in the Part VII application proceeding.

21.

Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the costs to be paid to UDC at $3,880.78.

22.

The Commission directs that the award of costs to UDC be paid forthwith by Bell Canada, on behalf of the Companies, and by TELUS, according to the proportions set out in paragraph 18.
  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: 2004-04-23

Date modified: