ARCHIVED - Telecom Procedural Letter Addressed to Various Parties

This page has been archived on the Web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, 21 January 2019

Our reference: 1011-NOC2017-0450


Dear Madam, Sir,

Re: Apportioning of costs in the Public Interest Advocacy Centre’s application for costs arising from the review of the reseller registration obligation, Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2017-450

On 15 December 2017, the Commission issued a call for comments on which types of non-carriers (resellers) should be exempt from the obligation to register with the Commission prior to receiving telecommunications for resale from Canadian carriers or other resellers.

On 1 March 2018, the Commission circulated a procedural letter to various parties, including those who intervened in the proceeding initiated by TNC 2017-450 as well as to distribution lists maintained by the Commission. The letter included five questions to all recipients (with an additional question to TELUS Communications Inc.). The Commission received various submissions in response. Some parties submitted responses to the Commission’s questions, as required, but did not otherwise participate voluntarily in the proceeding.

On 8 May 2018, the Commission received an application for costs from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC). In its costs application, PIAC suggested that its costs should be apportioned in the following manner:

Commission staff notes that the Commission’s general practice is to apportion costs based on the TORs of the parties to the proceeding as well as considering the usual costs award practices and procedures set out in Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-963.

Commission staff further notes that, in the proceeding, many companies intervened that are not telecommunications service providers and do not have significant, if any, TORs.

To obtain the parties’ views on possible costs apportionment, Commission staff has attached requests for information. Parties copied on this correspondence are to provide responses to the requests for information, to be filed and served on the parties copied on this correspondence by 31 January 2019.  The responses will be available for all parties on the Commission’s website. Parties copied on this correspondence may file comments on the responses to the requests for information, to be filed and served on the parties copied on this correspondence by 5 February 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.

Yours sincerely,

Original signed by

William Abbott
Legal Counsel


Public Interest Advocacy Centre, & 
British Columbia Broadband Association (BCBA),  
FCA Canada Inc., 
Geotab Inc., 
Independent Telecommunications Providers Association,
IBM Canada Ltd.,
University of Alberta, 
Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc.,  
Québecor Média inc., 
TELUS Communications Inc.,
Queen’s University, &
Cogeco Communications Inc.,
The Toronto Internet Exchange, 
Coalition pour le service 9-1-1 au Québec, 
Cybera Inc., 
McLean & Kerr LLP, 
Communications Distributors Inc., 
Steven Shearer,  
Verizon Canada ltd.,
Bell Canada,
Shaw Communications Inc.,
676766 Ontario Ltd operating as “KWIC Internet”,
Thomson Reuters Canada Limited,
SSI Micro Ltd.,
Sprint International Communications Canada ULC,
094206 Ontario Ltd operating as "Ruralwave”,
Columbia Basin Broadband Corporation,
Pulsar360 Inc.,
Core Broadband Inc., 
Silo Wireless Inc.,
Saskatchewan Telecommunications,
Microsoft Corporation,
Rogers Communications Canada Inc.,
Colt Technology Services LLC,
West Telecom Services LLC,;
BullsEye Telecom Inc.,


Question 1
If the Commission decided to award costs in this proceeding, should the costs be apportioned solely among the participating telecommunications service providers (TSPs) in proportion to each TSPs’ telecommunications operating revenues? If yes, should those TSPs that only responded to the 1 March 2018 procedural letter also be included in the apportionment?

Indicate, with supporting rationale, whether or not you support this approach to apportionment of costs in this proceeding.

Question 2
If you do not support the appropriation models contemplated in question 1, which appropriation model would you propose and why?

Date modified: