ARCHIVED - Telecom Procedural Letter addressed to Distribution List

This page has been archived on the Web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, 12 February 2016

Our Reference: 8657-C12-201505505; 4754-502; 4754-503; 4754-504; 4754-505; 4754-506; and 4754-507

DELIVERED BY EMAIL

National Pensioners Federation, Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia, and Public Interest Advocacy Centre (jlawford@piac.ca and alau@piac.ca);
Union des consommateurs (info@uniondesconsommateurs.ca and slambert-racine@uniondesconsommateurs.ca);
Media Access Canada (MAC@mediac.ca);
Consumers Council of Canada (whitehurst@consumerscouncil.com and howard.deane@consumerscouncil.com);
Forum for Research and Policy in Communications (execdir@frpc.net); and
Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (tisrael@cippic.ca)

RE: Applications for costs award with respect to the participation of parties in Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation 2015-239, Review of the structure and mandate of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services Inc.

Dear Madam/Sir:

The Commission received separate applications for costs from the National Pensioners Federation, Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations of British Columbia, and Public Interest Advocacy Centre (NPF-COSCO-PIAC), l’Union des consommateurs (l’Union), Media Access Canada (MAC), the Consumers Council of Canada, the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications (FRPC), and the Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) (the costs applicants) with respect to their participation in Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation 2015-239, Review of the structure and mandate of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services Inc. (the proceeding).

The purpose of this letter is to request additional information from all costs applicants regarding their application for costs.

All Costs Applicants:

The proceeding related to both telecommunications and broadcasting issues. This is important to note as there are no provisions for awarding costs for work related to broadcasting matters under the Broadcasting Act. The Commission may only award costs related to telecommunications matters under the Telecommunications Act, however, parties are free to apply to the Broadcasting Participation Fund for the portion of their time dedicated to broadcasting matters in the proceeding. Accordingly, parties must demonstrate to the Commission what proportion of their costs related to telecommunications as opposed to broadcasting matters.

By letter dated 17 December 2015, TELUS Communications Company (TCC) filed a response to the costs applications of NPF-COSCO-PIAC and l’Union asking both parties to resubmit their respective applications for costs, indicating the proportion of time spent on telecommunications matters as opposed to broadcasting matters. In addition, TCC was of the view that the Commission should require all parties that submit an application for costs in the proceeding to indicate time spent on telecommunications as opposed to broadcasting matters. Further, TCC submitted that if parties do not file evidence indicating time spent between telecommunications and broadcasting matters, the Commission should make an order that only 2/3 of the total costs are entitled to be reimbursed, with an assumption that 1/3 of the time spent on the proceeding was spent on broadcasting matters.

In their reply, NPF-COSCO-PIAC submitted, amongst other things, that it was virtually impossible to time-keep and categorize each minute as telecommunications or broadcasting. Further, due to the administrative burden, NPF-COSCO-PIAC disagreed with the requirement to re-file its initial costs claim. NPF-COSCO-PIAC suggested that the Commission publicly state what it considered to be a reasonable apportionment of telecommunications and broadcasting time in a combined telecommunications and broadcasting proceeding and costs applicants could then make the case if this percentage was not reflective of their actual work. NPF-COSCO-PIAC agreed with TCC that the proper approximation of time was 2/3 telecommunications and 1/3 broadcasting. L’Union did not file a reply.

In the FRPC’s costs application, it noted that its work was divided equally between telecommunications and broadcasting matters and applied to the Commission for 50% of the total costs associated with their participation in the proceeding. 
Commission staff notes that the Commission cannot predetermine the amount of time spent by costs applicants in combined telecommunications and broadcasting proceedings. The overall division of issues in a combined telecommunications and broadcasting proceeding does not necessarily translate into the amount of time that any specific costs applicant devotes to either telecommunications or broadcasting matters. It is only the individual costs applicant that knows the amount of time it spent on particular issues and whether these issues related to telecommunications or broadcasting matters.

In light of the above, all costs applicants are requested to provide the percentage of time spent on telecommunications matters during the proceeding, including support as to how you determined the amount time spent on telecommunications matters as opposed to broadcasting matters.
The requested information is to be filed with the Commission by 22 February 2016. Any other interested party may file their answer by 3 March 2016. All costs applicants may reply to any comments no later than 14 March 2016.

L’Union and the Consumers Council of Canada:

Pursuant to section 68 of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Commission determines whether to award final costs on the basis of the following criteria:

  1. whether the applicant had, or was the representative of a group or a class of subscribers that had, an interest in the outcome of the proceeding;
  2. the extent to which the applicant assisted the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters that were considered; and
  3. whether the applicant participated in the proceeding in a responsible way.

L’Union and the Consumers Council of Canada are requested to indicate in detail how they have satisfied the Commission’s criteria for an award of costs.
The requested information is to be filed with the Commission by 22 February 2016. Any other interested party may file their answer by 3 March 2016. L’Union and the Consumers Council of Canada may reply to any comments no later than 14 March 2016.
A copy of this letter and all related correspondence will be added to the public record of the proceeding.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (613) 608-8368 or alexander.ly@crtc.gc.ca

In the meantime, the Commission is currently continuing its review of all costs applications related to the proceeding.

Yours Sincerely,

original signed by
Alexander Ly
Legal Counsel

cc:
8com, admin@8com.ca
All Communications Network of Canada Co., TaxDepartment@acninc.com
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, regulatory@bellaliant.ca
Bell Canada and Bell Mobility (Bell Mobility, Virgin Mobile, Solo), bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Bragg Communications Incorporated (EastLink), regulatory.matters@corp.eastlink.ca and natalie.macdonald@corp.eastlink.ca  
Comwave Network Inc., ybarzakay@comwave.net
Cogeco Cable Inc., telecom.regulatory@cogeco.com and Michel.Messier@cogeco.com
Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc., chickey@cnoc.ca;
Data & Audio Visual Enterprises Wireless Inc. (MOBILICITY), gary.wong@mobilicity.ca  
Distributel Communications Limited, regulatory@distributel.ca
Globalive Wireless Management Corp. (WIND), lgoetz@windmobile.ca
MTS Inc, iworkstation@mtsallstream.com
NorthernTel, Limited Partnership, superviseurres@telebec.com
Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc., regulatory@primustel.ca
Rogers Communications Inc. and Rogers Wireless Partnership (including all of its mobile/wireless operations), rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com  and  david.watt@rci.rogers.com
Saskatchewan Telecommunications, document.control@sasktel.com
Shaw Communications Inc., Regulatory@sjrb.ca
TBayTel, rob.olenick@tbaytel.com
Teksavvy Solutions Inc., regulatory@teksavvy.com and babramson@teksavvy.com
Télébec, Limited Partnership, superviseurres@telebec.com
TELUS Communications Company, regulatory.affairs@telus.com and ted.woodhead@telus.com and lecia.simpson@telus.com
Videotron G.P., regaffairs@quebecor.com and francois.joli-coeur@quebecor.com
Xplornet Communications Inc., jacob.friedman@corp.xplornet.com

Date modified: