Search

Telecom Order CRTC 2026-181

PDF version

Gatineau, 22 July 2026

File numbers: 8665-D112-202502708, 8665-C423-202502723, and 4754-796

Determination of costs award with respect to the participation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of the Deaf in the proceedings initiated by applications to review and vary Telecom Regulatory Policy 2025-54

Application

  1. By letter dated 8 August 2025, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of the Deaf (NLAD) applied for costs with respect to its participation in two separate proceedings initiated by applications to review and vary Telecom Regulatory Policy 2025-54 (the proceedings). NLAD participated in collaboration with the Ontario Association of the Deaf (OAD) as part of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Coalition (DHHC), and each submitted its own costs application. The first proceeding was initiated by an application from the DHHC raising concerns with aspects of Telecom Regulatory Policy 2025-54 (the policy) about continued barriers for Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) individuals using video relay service (VRS). In the second proceeding, the Canada Deaf Grassroots Movement (CDGM) requested that the Commission review some of the determinations it made in the policy. NLAD participated in that proceeding through an intervention in support of the application.
  2. Bell Canada filed an answer, dated 18 August 2025, in response to NLAD’s application. On 28 August 2025, NLAD and the OAD replied to Bell Canada’s answer.
  3. NLAD 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 proceedings, 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, NLAD explained that it represents the interests of DHH sign language users who would benefit from a DHH-friendly and accessible VRS. NLAD submitted that its mission is to protect and promote the rights, needs, and concerns of people who are Deaf or who communicate in American Sign Language within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. NLAD further submitted that its contributions offered a distinct and unique point of view on the issues under consideration and did not duplicate those of other parties.
  5. NLAD requested that the Commission fix its costs at $842.50, consisting of consultant fees and disbursements. NLAD filed a bill of costs with its application.
  6. NLAD claimed 1.75 days at a rate of $470 per day for an internal consultant, consisting of 0.5 days to review the file for its review and vary application, 0.5 days to prepare the review and vary application, 0.5 days to prepare the reply related to that application, and 0.25 days to prepare the intervention to the CDGM’s application. NLAD also claimed $20 for disbursements to notarize documents.
  7. NLAD submitted that the telecommunications service providers that were mandated in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2014-187 to fund VRS through the National Contribution Fund are the appropriate parties to be required to pay any costs awarded by the Commission (the costs respondents).

Answer

  1. Bell Canada submitted that the Commission should deny or reduce NLAD’s application for costs. Bell Canada indicated that costs should not be awarded to a party that initiates a review and vary proceeding unless the application is successful, and that the alternative risks creating perverse incentives. Bell Canada added that NLAD did not meet the legal threshold for a review and vary application because it had failed to establish substantial doubt as to the correctness of the policy. Bell Canada therefore submitted that the costs application should be denied.
  2. Bell Canada further submitted that the costs application should be significantly reduced because of duplication between NLAD’s review and vary application and its submissions for the VRS review proceeding. Alternatively, Bell Canada suggested a reduction in costs because the review and vary application submitted by the DHHC should have been submitted together with the CDGM’s, rather than as two separate applications. Bell Canada added that NLAD submitting costs related to two proceedings in a single costs application created a risk of double counting. Bell Canada also indicated that the costs application was submitted late.

Reply

  1. NLAD and the OAD submitted that, rather than responding to what Bell Canada identified as a perverse incentive, they filed their review and vary application because they identified genuine issues with VRS as mandated by the policy.
  2. Regarding the duplication between submissions, NLAD noted that referring to past submissions was necessary to demonstrate why the policy needed to be reviewed and varied. Regarding the lack of coordination with the CDGM, NLAD indicated that parties are permitted to coordinate submissions and applications, but are not required to do so. NLAD added that its decision to file a single costs application covering two proceedings aims at reducing regulatory burden. NLAD further submitted that its costs application was not late, because it was filed within 30 days of the dates for final comments in the review and vary proceedings.

Request for information

  1. On 21 January 2026, Commission staff sent a request for information (RFI) to NLAD and the OAD, seeking further clarity on the hours submitted and how NLAD and the OAD accounted for any overlap in the time spent on their application, intervention in the CDGM proceeding, and reply.
  2. On 4 February 2026, NLAD and the OAD replied with a breakdown of the proceedings to which internal consultant hours related. They also indicated that there was no overlap in submissions for which costs were claimed and no double counting or overcompensation. Regarding potential duplication with previous submissions, NLAD and the OAD submitted that their evidence was presented with quotes from previous submissions and that this approach therefore did not necessitate any new research or analysis for their review and vary application. This, however, did not apply to their intervention or reply.

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, NLAD has demonstrated that it meets this requirement. NLAD represents the interests of sign language users who would benefit from a DHH-friendly and accessible VRS, in particular people who are Deaf or who communicate in American Sign Language within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
  3. NLAD has also satisfied the remaining criteria through its participation in the proceedings. In particular, NLAD’s submissions, especially regarding issues for DHH users and barriers to accessing and using VRS that were not addressed in the policy, assisted the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters that were considered. The Commission also notes that the application was filed within 30 days of the dates fixed in the proceedings for final representations, and that it was therefore not submitted late. NLAD participated in a responsible way by filing its documents on time and responding to both Bell Canada’s answer and Commission staff’s RFI.
  4. Regarding Bell Canada’s answer, the Commission notes that an award of costs does not require that the costs applicant be successful in its review and vary application. The criteria an applicant is required to meet are set out in section 68 of the Rules of Procedure. Additionally, pursuant to Telecom Regulatory Policy 2010-963, the Commission has previously held that automatically denying costs when a costs applicant’s application under Part VII of the Telecommunications Rules or Part 1 of the Rules of Procedure has not been successful could have a chilling effect on those who wish to raise issues of public interest.Footnote 1
  5. The Commission assesses each costs application on its merits. This approach allows for the possibility of awarding costs when parties raise issues of public interest, even if those parties are ultimately unsuccessful in their application. The Commission also notes that ensuring that funding is used effectively in the public interest is a key theme in the Commission’s current proceeding on improving public interest participation.
  6. Regarding Bell Canada’s submission that costs could have been reduced through coordination, the Commission is of the view that the costs applicants were not obligated to combine their applications with that of the CDGM. Although both the CDGM and the DHHC represent accessibility concerns relevant to sign language users, this does not mean that they hold the same views and must coordinate submissions.
  7. The Commission also notes that separate costs applications would typically be submitted for participation in different proceedings, and that NLAD would have been eligible to submit separate costs applications for both proceedings. However, the approach taken by NLAD in this case was aimed at reducing administrative burden, and the combined costs application can therefore be assessed, but care must still be taken to ensure that this does not result in double counting or overcompensation.
  8. The rates claimed in respect of 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 most costs claimed were necessarily and reasonably incurred, but that the costs for preparing the application should be reduced in light of the extensive use of quotations and NLAD’s submission about not conducting new research or analysis for it.
  9. The Commission recognizes that preparing an application requires time for writing and filing the application in addition to research and analysis. However, given the extensive quotations in the content of the application and the lack of new research or analysis conducted, the 0.5 internal consultant days claimed for preparing the application are not reasonable.
  10. Costs awards are intended to compensate for work that is both necessary and reasonably incurred. Where the work performed is limited in scope, such as organizing existing materials or presenting established positions, the time claimed must be proportionate to that more limited effort. In this case, the preparation appears to have involved primarily compilation and formatting rather than substantive development of arguments or evidence. As such, the Commission considers that the level of effort required would reasonably be lower than claimed.
  11. Accordingly, a reduction of 50% specifically applied to the time claimed to prepare the review and vary application is appropriate to reflect the limited complexity and absence of new research or analysis. This results in a reduction of $117.50 from NLAD’s costs.
  12. 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.
  13. 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 proceedings and participated actively in the proceedings: Bell Canada and its affiliates (Bell Canada et al.);Footnote 2 Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as Eastlink (Eastlink); Cogeco Communications Inc. (Cogeco); Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of its affiliates Freedom Mobile Inc. and Videotron Ltd. (Quebecor); Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers); Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel); TBayTel; TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS); and Xplore Inc.Footnote 3
  14. 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 proceedings.Footnote 4
  15. 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. In this case, because the costs award is under $1,000, only one costs respondent is required to pay.
  16. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the responsibility for payment of costs should be allocated as follows:Footnote 5
    Company Proportion Amount
    Bell Canada et al. 100% $725

Directions regarding costs

  1. The Commission approves, with modifications and by majority decision, the application by NLAD for costs with respect to its participation in the proceedings.
  2. Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the costs to be paid to NLAD at $725.
  3. The Commission directs that the award of costs to NLAD be paid forthwith by Bell Canada and its affiliates according to the proportions set out in paragraph 29.
  4. A dissenting opinion by Commissioner Ellen C. Desmond, K.C. is attached to this order.

Secretary General

Dissenting opinion of Commissioner Ellen C. Desmond, K.C.

Background

  1. The Newfoundland and Labrador Association of the Deaf (NLAD) is an organization that protects and promotes the rights, needs, and concerns of people who are Deaf or who communicate in American Sign Language in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It has intervened in various Commission proceedings, sometimes as a standalone intervener and sometimes in conjunction with other organizations. It has successfully intervened on many occasions, making valuable contributions and raising unique accessibility perspectives.
  2. In 2021, the Commission issued Telecom Notice of Consultation 2021-102, which commenced a review of video relay service (VRS). NLAD joined with two other entities, namely, the Ontario Association of the Deaf (OAD) and the Deafness Advocacy Association Nova Scotia, to form the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Coalition (DHHC). The DHHC was successful in making meaningful contributions to the proceeding and was awarded costs for its participation.Footnote 1
  3. The Commission subsequently issued Telecom Regulatory Policy 2025-54 (the policy) to ensure that the service is more inclusive and diverse and to enhance its usability.
  4. Thereafter, the DHHC filed a review and vary application of the policy. It also participated as an intervener in a review and vary application that had been filed by the Canada Deaf Grassroots Movement (CDGM), supporting its request for relief. In both cases, the review and vary applications were dismissed after the Commission carefully assessed the record and determined that a substantial doubt as to the correctness of the updated VRS policy had not been established.Footnote 2

Costs application

  1. NLAD has now applied for costs arising from the review and vary applications. This costs application is separate from another costs application filed by the OAD.
  2. The NLAD costs application totals $842.50 and is comprised of two parts:


    (a) costs arising from its own review and vary application; and

    (b) costs arising from its intervention in the CDGM application.

  3. NLAD submitted that it has met the criteria for a costs award as set out in section 68 of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, which requires the Commission to consider:


    (a) whether the applicant has represented a group or class of subscribers that had an interest in the outcome of the proceeding;

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

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

  4. My colleagues have determined that these three criteria have been satisfied and that costs, in part, should follow. With the greatest respect to my colleagues, I do not agree.
  5. In particular, I am not satisfied that the second criterion has been properly considered by the majority. The DHHC, of which NLAD was a part, provided a strong and compelling intervention at first instance and in response to the original notice of consultation. It successfully assisted the Commission in acquiring a better understanding of accessibility concerns and persistent accessibility barriers during the original proceeding.
  6. In contrast, and in filing the review and vary application, the DHHC reiterated many of the same arguments that were offered in the proceeding leading to the policy. Similarly, its intervention in the CDGM application was limited. It did affirm the position of the CDGM but did not raise any new substantive views or issues.
  7. In Telecom Decision 2026-72, the Commission noted that it had already “taken measures to help address the specific concerns raised by the DHH Coalition in its review and vary application”.Footnote 3 Moreover, the Commission stated as follows at paragraph 17:
    1. Regarding the review and vary application, while the DHH Coalition expressed dissatisfaction with certain aspects of Telecom Regulatory Policy 2025-54 and reiterated many of the recommendations it made in the proceeding that led to the regulatory policy, it did not demonstrate an error, a fundamental change, a failure to consider a basic principle, or a new principle that would raise a substantial doubt as to the correctness of the decision.
  8. In light of this finding, it is not possible to conclude that NLAD substantially assisted the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters to be considered (emphasis added).
  9. My colleagues have taken a different approach. They have decided that costs should be awarded, in part, while also acknowledging that the review and vary application had limited complexity and that there was an absence of any new research or analysis. They have referred to Telecom Regulatory Policy 2010-963, where the Commission stated that automatically denying costs (emphasis added) when an application has not been successful could have a chilling effect on those who wish to raise issues of public interest.
  10. I do not dispute this regulatory principle. It is important that applicants have the ability to bring forward public interest issues and successfully recover costs, where appropriate.
  11. At the same time, it is not sufficient to simply express dissatisfaction or restate original arguments. In these instances, and where an applicant does not provide any new facts, analysis, or research, it does not assist in providing a better understanding of the matters in issue (emphasis added). An applicant should be able to demonstrate that they have, in some way, gone further than reiterating their original position.
  12. In effect, costs should only be awarded where the Commission’s framework and criteria have been satisfied. In this case, and having considered the extent to which the applicant has assisted the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters to be considered (emphasis added), costs should not be awarded.

Related documents

Date modified: