Search

Telecom Order CRTC 2023-373

PDF version

Ottawa, 17 November 2023

File numbers: 1011-NOC2022-0065 and 4754-695

Determination of costs award with respect to the participation of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation 2022-65

Application

  1. By letter dated 3 August 2022, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) applied for costs with respect to its participation in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation 2022-65 (the proceeding). In the proceeding, the Commission sought to address disparities in the cost of next-generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) services across Canada in order to prevent certain customers, including vulnerable and rural residents, from facing significantly higher access costs to NG9-1-1 services. Specifically, the Commission asked for input from parties on whether NG9-1-1 services should be funded, at least in part, through the National Contribution Fund (NCF).
  2. The Commission did not receive any interventions in response to the application for costs.
  3. PIAC 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 had assisted the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters that were considered, and it had participated in a responsible way.
  4. In particular, PIAC submitted that it represents the interests of Canadians, with a focus on low-income Canadians. PIAC added that it represents a number of individual and organizational members.Footnote 1 PIAC stated that it is held accountable to the groups it represents through a volunteer board of directors drawn from across the country.
  5. PIAC requested that the Commission fix its costs at $8,190.49 consisting entirely of legal fees. PIAC’s claim included the Ontario Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) on fees less the rebate to which PIAC is entitled in connection with the HST. PIAC filed a bill of costs with its application.
  6. PIAC claimed 5.6 hours for senior external counsel at a rate of $290 per hour for work preparing for the proceeding including drafting a procedural letter and request for information ($1,687.99 with the HST and the associated rebate), 10.25 days for an in-house counsel at a rate of $600 per day for preparing and drafting the intervention ($6,150), and 1.5 days for an articling student at a rate of $235 per day for legal research ($352.50).
  7. PIAC did not specifically name the appropriate parties to be required to pay any costs awarded by the Commission (the costs respondents), but it submitted that, consistent with Telecom Regulatory Policy 2010-963, it would be appropriate to allocate responsibility for payment among costs respondents based on the most recent data provided to the Commission by telecommunications service providers (TSPs).

Commission’s analysis

  1. 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:

      (a) 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;

      (b) the extent to which the applicant assisted the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters that were considered; and

      (c) whether the applicant participated in the proceeding in a responsible way.

  2. 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, PIAC has demonstrated that it meets this requirement. PIAC submitted that it has a history of representing consumers, especially those who are vulnerable, in Commission proceedings including various proceedings related to the 9-1-1 service. PIAC’s intervention was aimed at Canadian consumers, particularly those in low-income and remote areas, emphasizing the importance of a reliable 9-1-1 system for public safety.
  3. PIAC has also satisfied the remaining criteria through its participation in the proceeding. PIAC assisted the Commission in understanding matters related to NG9-1-1 access services by TSPs by providing analysis and commentary on the NCF funding model with a view towards efficiency and consumer interests. Furthermore, PIAC participated responsibly in this proceeding by respecting the deadlines and processes set out in the proceeding. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the applicant meets the criteria for an award of costs under section 68 of the Rules of Procedure.
  4. The rates claimed in respect of legal fees are in accordance with the rates established in the Guidelines for the Assessment of Costs (the Guidelines), as set out in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2010-963. The Commission finds that the total amount claimed by PIAC was necessarily and reasonably incurred and should be allowed.
  5. 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.
  6. 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: 9315-1884 Québec inc.; Bell Canada; Brooke Telecom Co-operative Ltd.; Bruce Telecom Ontario Inc.; City West Cable & Telephone Corp.; Cochrane Telecom Services; CoopTel coop de télécommunication; Execulink Telecom Inc.; Gosfield North Communications Co-operative Limited; Hay Communications Co-operative Limited; Huron Telecommunications Co-operative Limited; Lansdowne Rural Telephone Company Ltd.; Mornington Communications Co-operative Limited; Nexicom Inc.; North Frontenac Telephone Corporation Ltd.; North Renfrew Telephone Company Limited; Quadro Communications Co-operative Inc.; Quebecor Media Inc.; Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (RCCI); Saskatchewan Telecommunications; Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw)Footnote 2; Sogetel inc.; SSi Canada; TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI); TBayTel; Tuckersmith Communications Co-operative Limited; Wightman Telecom Ltd.; WTC Communications; and Xplornet Communications Inc.
  7. 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) as an indicator of the relative size and interest of the parties involved in the proceeding.
  8. 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.
  9. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the responsibility for payment of costs should be allocated as follows:Footnote 3
    Company Proportion Amount
    RCCI 38.18% $3,127.11
    TCI 35.97% $2,945.93
    Bell Canada 25.85% $2,117.45

Directions regarding costs

  1. The Commission approves the application by PIAC for costs with respect to its participation in the proceeding.
  2. Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the costs to be paid to PIAC at $8,190.49.
  3. The Commission directs that the award of costs to PIAC be paid forthwith by RCCI, TCI and Bell Canada according to the proportions set out in paragraph 16.

Secretary General

Related documents

Date modified: