ARCHIVED - Telecom Order CRTC 2009-655
This page has been archived on the Web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.
| Ottawa, 16 October 2009 | |||
Determination of costs award with respect to the participation of the Canadian Association of the Deaf in the Telecom Notice of Consultation 2009-6 proceeding |
|||
| File numbers: 8661-C12-200900094 and 4754-350 | |||
|
1. |
By letter dated 10 March 2009, the Canadian Association of the Deaf (CAD) applied for costs with respect to its participation in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation 2009-6 (the Notice of Consultation 2009-6 proceeding). | ||
|
2. |
The Commission did not receive any comments in response to CAD's application. | ||
Application |
|||
|
3. |
In its application, CAD 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 Notice of Consultation 2009-6 proceeding, it had participated responsibly, and it had contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission through its participation in the Notice of Consultation 2009-6 proceeding. | ||
|
4. |
CAD requested that the Commission fix its costs at $1,827, consisting of legal fees and the federal Goods and Services Tax on fees. CAD claimed six hours at a rate of $290 per hour for legal fees associated with outside legal counsel. | ||
|
5. |
CAD made no submission as to the appropriate costs respondents. | ||
Commission's analysis and determinations |
|||
|
6. |
The Commission finds that CAD has satisfied the criteria for an award of costs set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules. Specifically, the Commission finds that CAD is representative of a group or class of subscribers that has an interest in the outcome of the proceeding, it has participated in a responsible way, and it has contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission. | ||
|
7. |
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 24 April 2007. The Commission also finds that the total amount claimed by CAD was necessarily and reasonably incurred and should be allowed. | ||
|
8. |
The Commission considers 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 Telecom Public Notice 2002-5. | ||
|
9. |
The Commission notes that it has generally determined that the appropriate respondents to an award of costs are the parties who have a significant interest in the outcome of the proceeding and have participated actively in the proceeding. The Commission notes, in this regard, that Cogeco Cable Inc. was among the parties that actively participated in the Notice of Consultation 2009-6 proceeding and had a significant interest in its outcome. | ||
|
10. |
The Commission further notes, however, that in allocating costs among respondents, it has also been sensitive to the fact that if too large a number of respondents are named, the applicant may have to collect small amounts from many respondents, resulting in a significant administrative burden to the applicant. | ||
|
11. |
In light of the above and given the relatively small size of the costs award in this case, the large number of potential costs respondents, and the result that if all potential costs respondents were retained, CAD would be required to collect small amounts from certain respondents. Accordingly, the Commission considers that it is appropriate, in the present circumstances, to limit the respondents to MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream), Quebecor Media Inc. (Quebecor), Rogers Communications Inc. (RCI), and TELUS Communications Company (TCC). | ||
|
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 considers 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. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the responsibility for the payment of costs should be allocated as follows: | ||
| TCC | 67.5% | ||
| MTS Allstream | 13.0% | ||
| RCI | 13.0% | ||
| Quebecor | 6.5% | ||
Direction as to costs |
|||
|
13. |
The Commission approves the application by CAD for costs with respect to its participation in the Notice of Consultation 2009-6 proceeding. | ||
|
14. |
Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the costs to be paid to CAD at $1,827. | ||
|
15. |
The Commission directs that the award of costs to CAD be paid forthwith by MTS Allstream, Quebecor, RCI, and TCC according to the proportions set out in paragraph 12. | ||
| Secretary General | |||
Related documents |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
| This document is available in alternative format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca | |||
- Date modified: