| |
Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2006-15 |
| |
Ottawa, 2
November 2006 |
| |
Application for costs by Public Interest Advocacy Centre –
Reconsideration of Regulatory framework for voice communication
services using Internet Protocol, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-28,
Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-6 |
| |
Reference: 8663-C12-200605587 and 4754-271 |
|
1. |
By letter
dated 3 August 2006, Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) applied
for costs on behalf of the Consumer Groups, with respect to their
participation in the proceeding initiated by Reconsideration of
Regulatory framework for voice communication services using Internet
Protocol, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-28, Telecom Public Notice
CRTC 2006-6, 10 May 2006 (the Public Notice 2006-6 proceeding). |
|
2. |
By letter
dated 3 August 2006, TELUS Communications Company (TCC) filed comments
in response to PIAC's costs application. By letter dated 9 August
2006, Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, Bell
Canada, Saskatchewan Telecommunications, and Société en commandite
Télébec (collectively, the Companies) filed comments in response to
the application. |
| |
The application |
|
3. |
PIAC
submitted that the Consumer Groups have met the criteria for a costs
award set out in subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications
Rules of Procedure (the Rules), as they represented a group of
subscribers who would be materially affected by the outcome of the
Public Notice 2006-6 proceeding, they have an interest in the outcome
of the Public Notice 2006-6 proceeding, they have participated
responsibly and they have contributed to a better understanding of the
issues by the Commission through their comments in the Public
Notice 2006-6 proceeding. |
|
4. |
PIAC
requested that the Commission fix its costs at $6,396.30, consisting
of legal fees. PIAC claimed 50% of the Federal Goods and Services Tax
on the fees. |
|
5. |
PIAC did
not make any representations with regard to the appropriate costs
respondents. |
| |
Answer |
|
6. |
In answer
to the application, the Companies submitted that they did not object
to PIAC's entitlement to costs, nor to the amount claimed. The
Companies suggested that the Commission name as costs respondents and
allocate the costs in the same manner as it did in the proceeding
initiated by Regulatory framework for voice communication services
using Internet Protocol, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-2, 7
April 2004 (Public Notice 2004-2) and cited Telecom Costs Order CRTC
2005-2, 8 August 2005 (Costs Order 2005-2) as an example.
The Companies suggested that the costs allocated to the cable
companies be divided evenly amongst Cogeco Cable Inc., Quebecor Media
Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., and Shaw Communications Inc. |
|
7. |
TCC
submitted that it did not oppose PIAC's entitlement to costs nor the
amount claimed. TCC also suggested that the Commission allocate costs
in the same manner as it did in the two main Costs Orders relating to
Public Notice 2004-2, namely Costs Order 2005-2 and Telecom Costs
Order CRTC 2005-4, 19 August 2005 (Costs Order 2005-4). |
| |
Commission analysis and determination |
|
8. |
The
Commission finds that PIAC has satisfied the criteria for a costs
award set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules. Specifically, the
Commission finds that PIAC is representative of a group or class of
subscribers that has an interest in the outcome of the proceeding, has
participated in a responsible way and has contributed to a better
understanding of the issues by the Commission. |
|
9. |
The
Commission notes that the rates claimed in respect of legal fees are
in accordance with the rates set out in the Legal Directorate's
Guidelines for the Taxation of Costs, revised as of 15 May 1998.
The Commission finds that the total amount claimed by PIAC was
necessarily and reasonably incurred and should be allowed. |
|
10. |
The
Commission is of the view that this is an appropriate case in which to
fix the costs and dispense with taxation, in accordance with the
streamlined procedure set out in New procedure for Telecom costs
awards, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2002-5, 7 November 2002. |
|
11. |
The
Commission is of the view that Costs Orders 2005-2 and 2005-4 do not
provide a relevant framework for considering the appropriate costs
respondents to PIAC's application. The Commission notes the relatively
small amount claimed by PIAC and the potential administrative burden
placed upon it if it were to collect from many respondents. The
Commission is of the view that an appropriate framework for PIAC's
application can be found in Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2005-1,
8 August 2005, which was also issued in relation to the Public
Notice 2004-2 proceeding. In that Costs Order, the Commission named
the incumbent local exchange carriers as sole costs respondents, since
the amount claimed was relatively small and naming many costs
respondents would pose an administrative burden on the applicant.
Consistent with the Commission's approach to costs generally, the
Commission considers that it is appropriate in this instance to limit
the number of respondents to the Companies, TCC and MTS Allstream Inc.
(MTS Allstream). |
|
12. |
The
Commission notes that it has, in previous decisions, allocated the
responsibility for the payment of costs among respondents based on the
respondents' telecommunications operating revenues (TORs), as an
indicator of the relative size and interest of the parties involved in
the proceeding. The Commission is of the view that, in the present
circumstances, it is appropriate to apportion the costs among the
respondents in proportion to their TORs, as reported in their most
recent audited financial statements. The Commission names the
following companies as costs respondents: the Companies, TCC and MTS
Allstream. The Commission finds that the responsibility for the
payment of costs should be allocated as follows: |
| |
|
the Companies |
66% |
| |
|
TCC |
24% |
| |
|
MTS Allstream |
10% |
|
13. |
Consistent
with its general approach articulated in Telecom Costs Order CRTC
2002-4, 24 April 2002, the Commission makes Bell Canada responsible
for payment on behalf of the Companies and leaves it to the Companies
to determine the appropriate allocation of the costs among themselves. |
| |
Direction as to costs |
|
14. |
The
Commission approves the application by PIAC on behalf of the
Consumer Groups for costs with respect to their participation in the
Public Notice 2006-6 proceeding. |
|
15. |
Pursuant to
subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission
fixes the costs to be paid to PIAC at $6,396.30. |
|
16. |
The
Commission directs that the costs award to PIAC be paid forthwith by
Bell Canada on behalf of the Companies, TCC and MTS Allstream
according to the proportions set out in paragraph 12. |
| |
Secretary
General |
| |
This
document is available in alternative format upon request, and may also
be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca |
