Telecom Order CRTC 2022-305

Ottawa, 7 November 2022

File numbers: 1011-NOC2021-0191 and 4754-687

Determination of costs award with respect to the participation of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Coalition in the proceeding that led to Telecom Regulatory Policy 2022-234

Application

By letter dated 5 May 2022, the Deafness Advocacy Association Nova Scotia (DAANS) applied for costs on behalf of itself, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of the Deaf and the Ontario Association of the Deaf, (collectively, the DHH [Deaf and Hard of Hearing] Coalition). The application was made with respect to the DHH Coalition’s participation in the proceeding that led to Telecom Regulatory Policy 2022-234 (the proceeding). In the proceeding, the Commission sought comments to determine the need to implement a national three-digit code for mental health crisis and suicide prevention services, to identify existing barriers to the establishment of such a code and, if necessary, to determine how these barriers could be overcome.
The Commission did not receive any interventions in response to the DHH Coalition’s application for costs.
The DHH Coalition submitted that it had met the criteria for an award of costs set out in section 68 of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules of Procedure) because it represented a group or class of subscribers that had an interest in the outcome of the proceeding, it assisted the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters that were considered, and it participated in a responsible way.
In particular, the DHH Coalition submitted that its members represent Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) sign language users who are potential users of a three-digit abbreviated dialing code for mental health crisis and suicide prevention services. The DHH Coalition also submitted that it advanced the interests of DHH sign language users by providing focused submissions to ensure that a three-digit abbreviated dialing code is accessible to these users.
The DHH Coalition requested that the Commission fix its costs at $11,139.85, consisting of consultant and expert witness fees, as well as disbursements. The DHH Coalition filed a bill of costs with its application.
The DHH Coalition submitted that the appropriate costs respondents to its application are all the telecommunications service providers that participated in the proceeding.

Commission’s analysis

The criteria for an award of costs are set out in section 68 of the Rules of Procedure, which reads as follows:
1. The Commission must determine whether to award final costs and the maximum percentage of costs that is to be awarded on the basis of the following criteria:
  - 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;
  - the extent to which the applicant assisted the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters that were considered; and
  - whether the applicant participated in the proceeding in a responsible way.
In Telecom Information Bulletin 2016-188, the Commission provided guidance regarding how an applicant may demonstrate that it satisfies the first criterion with respect to its representation of interested subscribers. In the present case, the DHH Coalition has demonstrated that it meets this requirement. In particular, the DHH Coalition’s members represent DHH sign language users. The DHH Coalition was therefore well positioned to explain the needs of DHH sign language users in accessing a three-digit abbreviated dialing code for mental health crisis and suicide prevention services.
The DHH Coalition has also satisfied the remaining criteria through its participation in the proceeding. In particular, the DHH Coalition assisted the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters that were considered by providing focused submissions on what a DHH user-friendly and accessible three-digit abbreviated dialing code for mental health crisis and suicide prevention services should look like.
Further, the DHH Coalition participated in the proceeding in a responsible way. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the applicant meets the criteria for an award of costs under section 68 of the Rules of Procedure.
The rates claimed with respect to consultant fees are in accordance with the rates established in the Guidelines for the Assessment of Costs, as set out in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2010-963. The Commission finds that the total amount claimed by the DHH Coalition was necessarily and reasonably incurred and should be allowed.
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.
The Commission has generally determined that the appropriate costs respondents to an award of costs are the parties that have a significant interest in the outcome of the proceeding in question and have participated actively in that proceeding. The Commission considers that the following parties had a significant interest in the outcome of the proceeding and participated actively in the proceeding: Bell Canada; Bragg Communications Incorporated, carrying on business as Eastlink; Distributel Communications Limited; Iristel Inc.; Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of Videotron Ltd.; Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (RCCI); Saskatchewan Telecommunications; TBayTel; TekSavvy Solutions Inc.; and TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI).
The Commission considers that, consistent with its practice, it is appropriate to allocate the responsibility for payment of costs among costs respondents based on their telecommunications operating revenues (TORs)^{Footnote 1} as an indicator of the relative size and interest of the parties involved in the proceeding. However, as set out in Telecom Order 2015-160, the Commission considers $1,000 to be the minimum amount that a costs respondent should be required to pay, due to the administrative burden that small costs awards impose on both the applicant and costs respondents.

Accordingly, the Commission finds that the responsibility for payment of costs should be allocated as follows:^{Footnote 2}

Company	Proportion	Amount
Bell Canada	43.70%	$4,867.68
TCI	28.64%	$3,190.45
RCCI	27.66%	$3,081.72

2019 Policy Direction

The Governor in Council issued a policy direction in which it directed the Commission to consider how its decisions can promote competition, affordability, consumer interests, and innovation (the 2019 Policy Direction).^{Footnote 3} The Commission considers that the awarding of costs in this instance is consistent with subparagraph 1(a)(iv) of the 2019 Policy Direction.
By facilitating the participation of a group that represents consumer interests, this order contributes to enhancing and protecting the rights of consumers in their relationships with telecommunications service providers. Since consumer groups often require financial assistance to effectively participate in Commission proceedings, the Commission is of the view that its practice of awarding costs, as exercised in this instance, enables such groups to provide their perspectives on how consumer interests may be affected by the outcomes of the proceedings. In light of the above, the Commission considers that its determination to award costs to the DHH Coalition promotes consumer interests.

Directions regarding costs

The Commission approves the application by the DHH Coalition for costs with respect to its participation in the proceeding.
Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the costs to be paid to the DHH Coalition at $11,139.85.
The Commission directs that the award of costs to the DHH Coalition be paid forthwith by Bell Canada, TCI and RCCI according to the proportions set out in paragraph 15.

Secretary General

Language selection

Search and menus

Search