Search

Telecom Order CRTC 2026-198

PDF version

Gatineau, 5 August 2026

File numbers: 8622-T117-202600775 and 4754-861

Determination of costs award for the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project’s participation in the proceeding initiated by TekSavvy Solutions Inc. regarding Cogeco Communications Inc. decommissioning copper facilities

Application

  1. By letter dated 15 May 2026, the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project (CAMP) applied for costs to participate in the proceeding initiated by the Part 1 application filed by TekSavvy Solutions Inc. (TekSavvy) regarding Cogeco Communications Inc. (Cogeco) decommissioning copper facilities (the proceeding). In the proceeding, TekSavvy requested relief from the Commission regarding Cogeco’s planned decommissioning of its hybrid fibre-coaxial facilities in Chatham, Windsor, Burlington, and Kingston, Ontario, serving TekSavvy’s end-users.
  2. CAMP 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.
  3. With respect to the group or class of subscribers that CAMP has submitted it represents, CAMP explained that this group or class includes more than 1,400 Canadians who subscribe to its newsletter and more than 2,000 social media subscribers. In particular, CAMP submitted that it represented the interests of telecommunications consumers who rely on competitive wholesale-based Internet services for affordable connectivity.
  4. CAMP explained that it assisted the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters that were considered by providing a distinct point of view and analysis of the issues under consideration.
  5. CAMP also submitted that it participated in the proceeding in a responsible way.
  6. CAMP requested that the Commission fix its costs at $4,887.73, consisting entirely of consultant fees. CAMP’s claim included the Ontario Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) on fees less the rebate to which CAMP is entitled in connection with the HST. CAMP filed a bill of costs with its application.
  7. CAMP claimed 28.5 hours at a rate of $165 per hour for a consultant for work on reviewing the file, research, managing the case, preparing its intervention, and for its costs application ($4,702.50 plus the HST and associated rebate).
  8. CAMP submitted that Bell Canada (including its affiliates), Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as Eastlink, Cogeco, Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers), and TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS) are the appropriate parties to be required to pay any costs awarded by the Commission (the costs respondents), because each carrier participated in the proceeding and Cogeco is the named respondent.
  9. The Commission did not receive any answers in response to the application for costs.

Commission’s analysis

  1. The criteria for an award of final 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 on how an applicant may demonstrate that it satisfies the first criterion with respect to its representation of interested subscribers. In the present case, CAMP has demonstrated that it meets this requirement. The Commission considers that CAMP demonstrated that it represents consumers who depend on wholesale-based alternatives, and particularly those in the four affected Ontario markets. CAMP also met this criterion through its submissions discussing the implications that the enforceability of wholesale access has on consumers and on competitive choice.
  3. CAMP has satisfied the second criterion through its participation in the proceeding. In particular, CAMP’s submissions on consumer choice and impact on competition, its interpretation of paragraph 51 of Telecom Regulatory Policy 2024-180,Footnote 1 and its overview of Cogeco’s decommissioning practices assisted the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters that were considered.
  4. Finally, CAMP has satisfied the third criterion by participating 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.
  5. The rates claimed for consultant 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 CAMP was necessarily and reasonably incurred and should be allowed.
  6. 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.
  7. 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 a proceeding and have participated actively in that proceeding. The Commission therefore considers that the following parties are the appropriate costs respondents: Bell Canada; Eastlink, Fibernetics, Rogers, TekSavvy Solutions Inc., and TELUS.
  8. 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.Footnote 2
  9. 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.

  10. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the responsibility for payment of costs should be allocated as follows:Footnote 3

    Company Proportion Amount
    Rogers 41.30% $2,018.63
    TELUS 35.75% $1,747.36
    Bell Canada 22.95% $1,121.74

Directions regarding costs

  1. The Commission approves the application by CAMP for costs to participate in the proceeding.
  2. Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the costs to be paid to CAMP at $4,887.73.
  3. The Commission directs that the award of costs to CAMP be paid forthwith by Bell Canada, Rogers Communications Canada Inc. and TELUS Communications Inc. according to the proportions set out in paragraph 19.

Secretary General

Related documents

Date modified: