ARCHIVED - Telecom Procedural Letter Addressed to the 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This page has been archived on the Web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, 10 December 2018

Our reference: 1011-NOC2018-0098

To: Distribution List


RE: Applications for costs awards in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2018-98

Dear Madam, Sir,

Between 9 November 2018 and 23 November 2018, six applications for costs awards were received in respect of the above-noted proceeding.

The purpose of this letter is to establish additional procedure in respect of these applications, as set out in greater detail below.

Requests for Information

Commission staff has attached requests for information to this letter in an Appendix. Costs applicants may provide their responses to the questions relevant to their applications, as indicated in the Appendix, by 17 December 2018.

Any potential costs respondent or other party may file comments on these responses by 20 December 2018.

Costs applicants may file a final reply by 10 January 2019.Footnote1

Procedural Request

On 5 December 2018, the Manitoba Coalition (comprised of the Manitoba Branch of the Consumers’ Association of Canada and the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg), filed a procedural request in its application for costs seeking leave to file reply comments to the answers of Bell Mobility and Telus Communications Inc. (TCI)

In the circumstances, the Manitoba Coalition will have the opportunity to include any reply comments concerning the answers of Bell Mobility and TCI in its final reply of 10 January 2019.

As set out in section 39 of the Telecommunications Act and in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961, Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, persons may designate certain information as confidential. A person designating information as confidential must provide a detailed explanation on why the designated information is confidential and why its disclosure would not be in the public interest, including why the specific direct harm that would be likely to result from the disclosure would outweigh the public interest in disclosure. Furthermore, a person designating information as confidential must either file an abridged version of the document omitting only the information designated as confidential or provide reasons why an abridged version cannot be filed.

All correspondence filed with the Commission as a result of this letter is to be served on all parties to the proceeding.

Yours sincerely,

original signed by

Adam Balkovec,
Legal Counsel

Distribution List:

Costs Applicants;;;;;;;;;;

Potential Costs Respondents and Others;;;;;;;;;;;  ;


Question for all costs applicants

On 28 November 2018, the Commission published Telecom Order 2018-437, Telecom Order 2018-438 and Telecom Decision 2018-439.

In its determinations, the Commission noted that it is generally open to a costs applicant to choose the manner in which they (i) demonstrate that they represent a group or class of subscribers that has an interest in a proceeding; and (ii) wish to make submissions to assist the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters under consideration. 

The Commission reiterated that undertaking surveys is simply one of many potential methods of achieving these ends and that, in all cases, a costs applicant must ensure that the total amount of costs incurred is necessary and reasonable in the particular circumstances.

These circumstances may include, among other things, the scope and complexity of the proceeding, the value of the costs applicant’s contribution, and any accessibility considerations. Further, the Commission may refer to the claims of other costs applicants or of the same applicant is previous proceedings, where appropriate.

If you choose, please address the Commission’s determinations in these matters insofar as they may apply to the costs you have claimed in the present proceeding.

Question for Deaf Wireless Canada Committee

In your application for costs you have included a disbursement in the amount of $6,778.48, described as an “Administration fee” (please refer to page 52 of your application). Please describe the nature of this fee in greater detail and address why it should be considered a necessary and reasonable expense.

Question for Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic and OpenMedia

In your application for costs you have included time sheets for six in-house OpenMedia analysts; however costs only appear to be claimed in respect of five analysts. Please address this apparent discrepancy.

Question for Manitoba Coalition

In your application you have claimed disbursements (please refer to Exhibit A of your application), including the following:

Please describe the nature of these disbursements in greater detail and address why they should be considered necessary and reasonable expenses with references, where appropriate, to the Commission’s Guidelines for the Assessment of Costs in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2010-963.

Date modified: