|
Telecom Costs Order
CRTC 2005-13 |
|
Ottawa, 16 November 2005 |
|
Application for
costs by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre on behalf of the Consumer
Groups - Follow-up Proceedings to Telecom Decision 2005-17,
Retail quality of service rate adjustment plan and related issues |
|
Reference: 8660-A53-200505084;
8660-T66-200505159;
8638-C12-200505018
and 4754-245 |
1.
|
By letter dated 30 June
2005, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), on behalf of itself,
the Consumers' Association of Canada, l'Union des consommateurs and
the National Anti-Poverty Organization (the Consumer Groups) applied
for costs with respect to their joint intervention in the follow-up
proceedings to Retail quality of service rate adjustment plan and
related issues, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-17,
24 March 2005 (the Decision 2005-17
follow-up proceedings).1 |
2.
|
By letters dated 11 July
2005 and 15 July 2005, TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI) and TELUS Communications
(Québec) Inc. (TELUS Québec) (collectively, TELUS) and Bell Canada,
Aliant Telecom Inc. (Aliant Telecom) and Saskatchewan Telecommunications
(collectively, the Companies), respectively filed responses to the
Consumer Groups' costs application. |
|
The application |
3.
|
The Consumer Groups submitted
that they had met the criteria for an award of costs as set out in
subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure
(the Rules) as they represented a body of subscribers that had a clear
interest in the outcome of the proceeding, they participated responsibly
and they contributed to a better understanding of the issues through
their comments in the proceeding. |
4.
|
The Consumer Groups requested
that the Commission fix their costs at $5,537.77, which included the
Federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) on certain fees less the rebate
to which they are entitled in connection with the GST. The breakdown
of the fees, inclusive of the respective GST and rebate portions,
includes $737.96 for legal fees and $4,799.81 for consulting/analyst
fees. The Consumer Groups filed a bill of costs with their application. |
5. |
The Consumer Groups did
not propose which party should be responsible for costs. |
|
Answer |
6. |
TELUS stated that it
did not oppose the Consumer Groups' costs application or the amount
claimed therein. TELUS submitted that the incumbent local exchange
carriers (ILECs) should be identified as cost respondents in this
matter in accordance with the Commission's statement that "it
has generally determined that the appropriate respondents to an award
of costs are the parties who are affected by the issues and have participated
actively in the proceeding."2
TELUS further submitted that Aliant Telecom and TELUS should
each bear 25% of the costs, given that these companies were the sole
ILEC participants in the exclusion application portion of the follow-up
proceeding. TELUS submitted that the remainder of the costs should
be apportioned among the ILECs on a revenue basis. |
7.
|
The Companies stated
that it did not oppose the Consumer Groups' costs application or the
amount claimed therein. The Companies submitted that the ILECs are
the proper costs respondents in this matter and that the costs should
be apportioned among them in accordance with each respondent's interest
in and participation in the proceeding. The Companies submitted that
the proceeding dealt with three distinct issues: the determination
of the revenue base (TMAV calculation) and the adverse event filings
by TCI and Aliant Telecom. The Companies submitted that the majority
of the proceedings' time and the Consumer Groups' interventions focussed
on the adverse event filings, which did not involve Bell Canada or
Saskatchewan Telecommunications and the allocation of costs should
reflect this fact. In this regard, the Companies submitted that it
would be helpful if the Consumer Groups had submitted a detailed bill
of costs so that costs could be apportioned accordingly. |
|
Commission analysis
and determination |
8. |
The Commission finds
that the Consumer Groups have met the criteria for a costs award as
set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules. Specifically, the Commission
finds that the Consumer Groups 1) represent various groups of subscribers
that have an interest in the outcome of the Decision 2005-17
follow-up proceedings of such a nature that they will receive a benefit
or suffer a detriment as a result of the orders or decisions resulting
from the proceedings; 2) have participated in a responsible way; and
3) have contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the
Commission. |
9. |
The Commission notes
that the rates claimed in respect of the legal and consulting/analyst
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 also finds that the total amount claimed by the
Consumer Groups 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. |
With respect to the issue
of the appropriate cost respondents, the Commission notes that in
its detailed bill of costs, the Consumer Groups broke down their participation
in the follow-up proceedings in the following manner: Aliant Telecom
Exclusion Application Proceeding, 34% (equivalent to $1,882.84); TCI
Exclusion Application Proceeding, 43% (equivalent to $2,381.24); and
Revenue Base Finalization Proceeding, 23% (equivalent to $1,273.69).
The Commission finds that these estimates are reasonable and is basing
its determination concerning the appropriate costs respondents upon
them. |
12. |
The Commission has generally
determined that the appropriate respondents to an award of costs are
the parties who have a significant interest in the outcome of the
proceedings and have participated actively in the proceedings. However,
the Commission has also been sensitive to the fact that if too large
a number of respondents are named, the applicant may have to collect
small amounts from many respondents. |
13. |
Accordingly, the Commission
names Aliant Telecom the costs respondent for the proportion
of the costs attributable to the Consumer Groups' participation in
the Aliant Telecom Exclusion Application Proceeding; TCI the
costs respondent for the proportion of the costs attributable to the
Consumer Groups' participation in the TCI Exclusion Application Proceeding;
and Bell Canada and TCI as costs respondents for the proportion of
the costs attributable to the Consumer Groups' participation in the
Revenue Base Finalization Proceeding. For the latter proceeding, the
Commission determines that the proper method of apportioning the costs
awarded among Bell Canada and TCI is to base it on their telecommunications
operating revenues. As such Bell Canada should be responsible
for 62% (equivalent to $789.69) and TCI for 38% (equivalent to
$484.00). |
|
Direction as to
costs |
16. |
The Commission approves
the application by PIAC, on behalf of the Consumer Groups, for an award
of costs with respect to their participation in the Decision 2005-17
follow-up proceedings. |
17. |
Pursuant to subsection
56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the
costs to be paid to PIAC, on behalf of the Consumer Groups, at $5,537.77. |
18. |
The Commission directs
that the award of costs to PIAC, on behalf of the Consumer Groups,
be paid forthwith, according to the proportions noted in paragraphs
11 and 13, as follows: by Aliant Telecom, $1,882.84; by TCI,
$2,865.24; and by Bell Canada, $789.69. |
|
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
|