Search

Telecom Order CRTC 2026-171

PDF version

Gatineau, 14 July 2026

File numbers: 1011-NOC2026-0031 and 4754-846

Determination of interim costs award with respect to the participation of the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation 2026-31

Application

  1. By letter dated 25 February 2026, the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project (CAMP) applied for interim costs with respect to its participation in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation 2026-31 (the proceeding). The Commission launched the proceeding as part of its Consumer Protections Action Plan to seek feedback on the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services Inc.’s (CCTS) complaint-based fee structure and the mechanisms through which such fees can be disputed.
  2. CAMP requested a total of $12,004.95 for consultant fees in order to participate in the proceeding. CAMP proposed that Bell Canada Inc.; Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as Eastlink; Cogeco Connexion Inc.; Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of Videotron Ltd.; Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers); Saskatchewan Telecommunications; and TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS) should be required to pay the costs.
  3. CAMP submitted that it meets the criteria for an award of interim costs set out in section 63 of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules of Procedure) because (i) it represents a group or class of subscribers that have an interest in the outcome of the proceeding, (ii) it can assist the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters to be considered, (iii) it does not have sufficient financial resources to participate effectively, and (iv) it undertakes to participate in the proceeding in a responsible way.
  4. In particular, CAMP submitted that it represents the interests of telecommunications consumers who depend on the CCTS as an independent complaint resolution mechanism. Furthermore, CAMP submitted that it will assist the Commission’s understanding in the proceeding by providing a consumer protection perspective on how fee structure design affects consumer access to complaint resolution that telecommunications service providers may not address. Regarding sufficient financial resources, CAMP indicated that it has not received any financial assistance in connection with its participation in the proceeding, that it currently has outstanding costs claims with the Commission, and without interim costs it will have to finance consultant fees before recovery is possible.
  5. On 9 March 2026, the Commission received answers in response to this interim application for costs. CAMP filed a reply dated 11 March 2026.

Answers

  1. Rogers submitted that CAMP is ineligible for costs awards because it does not represent a specific demographic with socio-economic features. In the alternative, if CAMP is deemed eligible to receive costs, Rogers requested reducing the hours claimed for case management.
  2. TELUS submitted that CAMP’s interim costs application is premature because CAMP had not filed an intervention on the record of the proceeding at the time of the interim costs application. TELUS further submitted that CAMP has not demonstrated insufficient financial resources. In the alternative, if CAMP is deemed eligible to receive interim costs, TELUS requested reducing the claimed hours and interim costs awarded.
  3. Bell Canada requested that the Commission reduce the hours for case management and costs application preparation.

Reply

  1. In its reply, CAMP pointed to the Commission’s previous interim costs award to CAMP,Footnote 1 to demonstrate that it is eligible to receive costs and that its application is not premature. In that decision, the Commission awarded CAMP with interim costs before CAMP filed any substantive work.
  2. Furthermore, CAMP submitted its claimed hours are grounded in previous experience across comparable proceedings and are therefore reasonable.
  3. Finally, CAMP submitted that it has not received, nor does it expect to receive, financial assistance for its participation in this proceeding. CAMP referenced paragraph 11 of the Guidelines for the Assessment of Costs (the Guidelines), as set out in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2010-963, to demonstrate that general funding not connected to participation in the proceeding is not relevant in the costs assessment. CAMP also reiterated that it has outstanding costs claims with the Commission, which in CAMP’s view justifies that it has insufficient financial resources to participate effectively.

Commission’s analysis

  1. The criteria for an award of interim costs are set out in section 63 of the Rules of Procedure, which reads as follows:
    1. The Commission must determine whether to award interim costs and the amount that is to be awarded on the basis of the following criteria:


      (a) whether the applicant has, or is the representative of a group or a class of subscribers that has, an interest in the outcome of the proceeding;

      (b) the extent to which the applicant can assist the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters to be considered;

      (c) whether the applicant has sufficient financial resources to participate effectively in the proceeding; and

      (d) whether the applicant undertook to participate in the proceeding in a responsible way.

  2. Although CAMP received an interim costs award in the past, the situation was unique because it was in response to Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation 2025-94, where the Commission did not require that applicants show that they have insufficient financial resources to participate effectively in the proceeding without costs.Footnote 2
  3. In the current proceeding, the Commission did not waive the requirement for costs applicants to demonstrate insufficient financial resources. In the Commission’s view, in this proceeding CAMP has not demonstrated insufficient financial resources to participate effectively.
  4. This requirement is not met by attesting whether an applicant will receive financial assistance in connection with its participation and that such financial assistance does not include general fundraising revenues or other support. This is required by the Guidelines in the context of ensuring that applicants are not double recovering their costs from other sources of funding in connection with the proceeding in addition to a costs award from the Commission. Footnote 3 In order to be eligible for interim costs specifically, applicants are still required to demonstrate how they do not have sufficient financial resources to participate effectively by explaining the specific circumstances that render them unable to participate otherwise. For example, in Telecom Order 2025-302, the applicant explained that it has no paid staff and depends entirely on costs recovery to support its participation in Commission proceedings. The Commission awarded interim costs to the applicant specifically to conduct a survey.Footnote 4
  5. In this case, CAMP has provided general statements about awaiting costs awards from other proceedings, but it has not provided detailed information or demonstrated how it has insufficient resources to participate in the current proceeding.
  6. The Commission is of the view that CAMP’s costs claim in this proceeding is best assessed in its application for final costs. The Commission notes that CAMP has filed an application for final costs, which the Commission will evaluate on its own merits.
  7. Accordingly, the Commission finds that CAMP has not demonstrated that it does not have sufficient financial resources to participate effectively in the proceeding. Accordingly, it does not meet the criteria for an interim costs award under section 63 of the Rules of Procedure.

Directions regarding costs

  1. The Commission denies the application by CAMP for interim costs with respect to its participation in the proceeding.

Secretary General

Related documents

Date modified: