|
Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2006-9
|
|
Ottawa, 30
August 2006 |
|
Canadian Association of the Deaf – Application for costs – CISC
Accessibility Issues Ad-Hoc Working Group (AIWG)
|
|
Reference: 8663-C12-200402892
and 4754-266 |
1. |
By letter
dated 7 April 2006, the Canadian Association of the Deaf (CAD) applied
for costs with respect to its participation in the CRTC Interconnection
Steering Committee (CISC) Accessibility Issues Ad-Hoc Working Group
(AIWG). |
2. |
By letter
dated 19 April 2006, Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, Saskatchewan
Telecommunications and Société en commandite Télébec (collectively, the
Companies) filed comments in answer to the application. By letter dated
21 April 2006, TELUS Communications Company (TCC) filed its response to
the application. |
|
The application
|
3. |
The CAD
submitted that it had met the criteria for an award of costs set out in
subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure
(the Rules) as it represents a group of subscribers that had an
interest in the outcome of the CISC-AIWG deliberations, had participated
responsibly and had contributed to a better understanding of the issues. |
4. |
In
particular, the CAD submitted that it represents the deaf community
which is directly impacted by Message Relay Services, the subject of the
CISC-AIWG deliberations. The CAD also submitted that it made submissions
and participated in conference calls and in the drafting of the
CISC-AIWG report. Finally, it submitted that its participation had
brought up points that had not been considered or had been inadequately
considered before it joined the committee and as such submitted that it
had contributed to a better understanding of the issues. |
5. |
The CAD
submitted a bill of costs with its application, claiming a total amount
of $13,043.30 in legal fees. |
6. |
The CAD took
no position on the appropriate respondents to its application. |
|
Answer
|
7. |
In answer to
the application, the Companies and TCC did not object to the CAD's
entitlement to costs or the amount claimed. |
8. |
With respect
to the appropriate respondents and the allocation of costs, the
Companies submitted that the Commission should identify the same costs
respondents and allocate costs in the same proportion as it did for the
costs awards in the main voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) proceeding,
on the basis that the CISC-AIWG dealt with broad-based social issues
that affect the entire telecommunications industry and its users and
that in CISC the Companies made significant contributions. In the
Companies' view, to select only those parties who participated in the
CISC-AIWG as cost respondents would impose a financial burden on those
parties who acted in a socially responsible manner. |
9. |
TCC recommended
that the respondents to the CAD's application and the cost allocation
methodology should be the same as that adopted by the Commission in
Application for costs by ARCH: A Legal Resource Centre for Persons
with Disabilities – Regulatory framework for voice communication services
using Internet Protocol, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-2,
Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2005-2,
8 August 2005, and Application for costs by ARCH: A Legal Resource
Centre for Persons with Disabilities – Forbearance from regulation
of local exchange services, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2005-2,
Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2006-2, 23
February 2006. Specifically, TCC recommended that the Companies, TCC
and MTS Allstream Inc. be responsible for 75% of the costs based
on their telecommunications revenues and the cable companies (Rogers
Communications Inc. (Rogers), Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw), Cogeco
Cable Inc. (Cogeco), Bragg Communications Inc. carrying on business
as Eastlink (Eastlink) and Quebecor Média Inc. (QMI)) be responsible
for the remaining 25%. |
|
Commission analysis and determination
|
10. |
The
Commission finds that the CAD has satisfied the criteria for an award of
costs set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules. Specifically, the
Commission finds that the CAD is representative of a group or class of
subscribers that has an interest in the outcome of the CISC-AIWG
deliberations, has participated in a responsible way, and has
contributed to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission. |
11. |
The
Commission notes that the legal fees claimed 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 was necessarily and reasonably incurred and
should be allowed. |
12. |
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. |
13. |
In
determining the appropriate respondents to an award of costs, the
Commission has generally looked at which parties are affected by the
issues and have actively participated in the proceeding. The Commission
has, however, also considered the potential administrative burden on
applicants if they were required to collect small amounts from many
respondents. |
14. |
Accordingly
and consistent with ARCH Disability Law Centre – Application for
Costs – CISC Accessibility Issues Ad-Hoc Working Group (AIWG),Telecom
Costs Order CRTC 2006-7,
16 June 2006, wherein the Commission awarded costs to ARCH Disability
Law Centre for the same CISC-AIWG deliberations, the Commission concludes
that the appropriate respondents to the CAD's application for costs
are Bell Canada and TCC (collectively, the respondent ILECs) as well
as Cogeco, QMI, Rogers, Eastlink and Shaw (collectively, the respondent
cable companies). |
15. |
Accordingly,
the respondent ILECs are to share $9,782.48, which represents 75% of the
costs awarded, in proportion to their most recent telecommunications
operating revenues (TORs), as follows: |
|
|
Bell Canada |
60% |
|
|
TCC |
40% |
|
With respect
to the respondent cable companies, the Commission considers that they
should equally share $3,260.82, which represents the remaining 25% of
the costs, such that each pays $652.17. |
|
Direction as to costs
|
16. |
The
Commission approves the application by the CAD for costs with
respect to its participation in the CISC-AIWG. |
17. |
Pursuant to
subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission
fixes the costs to be paid to the CAD at $13,043.30. |
18. |
The
Commission directs that the award of costs to the CAD be paid forthwith
by the respondent ILECs and the respondent cable companies according to
the proportions set out in paragraph 15. |
|
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
|