|
Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2007-3
|
|
Ottawa, 14
March 2007 |
|
Application for costs by Public Interest Advocacy Centre on behalf
of the Consumer Groups – Review of price cap framework, Telecom
Public Notice CRTC 2006-5
|
|
Reference:
8678-C12-200605553 and 4754-286 |
1. |
By letter
dated 21 December 2006, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC)
applied on behalf of the Consumer Groups for costs with respect to its
participation in the proceeding initiated by Review of Price Cap
Framework, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-5, 9 May 2006 (the PN
2006-5 proceeding). |
2. |
By letter
dated 29 December 2006, Bragg Communications Inc. (EastLink) filed
comments. By letter dated 31 December 2006, Bell Canada filed comments
on behalf of Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership,
Bell Canada, and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (collectively, the
Companies). |
3. |
PIAC did not
file a reply to the comments submitted regarding the application. |
|
The application
|
4. |
PIAC
submitted that the Consumer Groups 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 they represent a group
of subscribers that had an interest in the outcome of the PN 2006-5 proceeding, they had participated responsibly in the PN 2006-5 proceeding, and they had contributed to a better understanding of the
issues by the Commission. |
5. |
PIAC filed a
bill of costs with its application, claiming a total amount of $146
005.01 for legal and consultant fees, as well as disbursements. PIAC's
claim included the Federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) on fees less the
rebate to which PIAC is entitled in connection with the GST. PIAC did
not name any costs respondents or take any position as to the allocation
of its costs. |
6. |
In answer to
the application, the Companies submitted that they did not oppose PIAC's
entitlement to costs. However, they argued that the Commission should
consider the theoretical and practical flaws associated with Dr. Trevor
Roycroft's analysis when evaluating the merit of PIAC's costs claim
component related to this consultant. |
7. |
The Companies
further submitted that the following parties should be named as cost
respondents, on the basis of their participation in the proceeding and
their significant interest in its outcome: the Companies; TELUS
Communications Company (TCC); MTS Allstream Inc. (MTS Allstream); and
Quebecor Media Inc. (Quebecor), Cogeco Cable Inc. (Cogeco),
Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers), Shaw Communications Inc. (Shaw),
and EastLink (collectively, the competitors). The Companies noted that a
costs order arising from the previous Price Cap review proceeding,
Action Réseau Consommateur et al. application for costs – Price cap
review proceeding, Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2002-2, 1 March 2002
(Costs Order 2002-2) named both competitors and incumbents as
costs respondents because of their significant interest in the outcome. |
8. |
The Companies
suggested that any costs ordered should be allocated among the parties
in proportion to their respective share of telecommunications operating
revenues (TORs). |
9. |
In answer to
the application, EastLink submitted that while it did not oppose PIAC's
costs application, it was unable to comment on PIAC's participation and
the cost amount claimed because of its own limited participation in the
proceeding. EastLink submitted that it was not an appropriate costs
respondent due to this limited participation, which consisted entirely
of responding to interrogatories posed by the Commission. |
|
Commission's analysis and determinations
|
10. |
The
Commission finds that PIAC has satisfied the criteria for an award of
costs set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules. Specifically, the
Commission finds that the Consumer Groups are representative of a group
or class of subscribers that has an interest in the outcome of the
proceeding, have participated in a responsible way, and have contributed
to a better understanding of the issues by the Commission. |
11. |
In relation
to the portion of the costs claim related to Dr. Trevor Roycroft, the
Commission considers that both his written submissions and his oral
contributions at the hearing contributed positively to the Commission's
overall understanding of price cap regulatory issues. |
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
award, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2002-5, 7 November 2002. |
13. |
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 also finds that the total amount claimed by PIAC was
necessarily and reasonably incurred and should be allowed. |
14. |
The
Commission notes that the incumbent local exchange carriers and several
of their competitors were active participants in the proceeding, will be
affected by the outcome and should be costs respondents. |
15. |
The
Commission agrees with EastLink's assessment of its limited
participation in the proceeding, noting that it only submitted responses
to interrogatory questions posed by the Commission. Accordingly, the
Commission considers that EastLink is not an appropriate costs
respondent in this proceeding. |
16. |
In light of
the above, the Commission determines that this cost award shall be
allocated in the following proportions, based on relative TORs: |
|
Companies
|
62.3% |
|
TCC
|
21.4% |
|
MTS Allstream
|
9.3% |
|
Shaw
|
2.5% |
|
Rogers
|
2.1% |
|
Quebecor
|
1.8% |
|
Cogeco
|
0.6% |
17. |
Consistent
with its general approach articulated in Action Réseau Consommateur,
the Consumers' Association of Canada, Fédération des associations
coopératives d'économie familiale and the National Anti-Poverty
Organization application for costs – Public Notice CRTC 2001-60,
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 members of the Companies to determine the
appropriate allocation of the costs among themselves. |
|
Direction as to costs
|
18. |
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 PN 2006-5 proceeding. |
19. |
Pursuant to
subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission
fixes the costs to be paid to PIAC at $146,005.01. |
20. |
The
Commission directs that the award of costs to PIAC be paid forthwith by
the costs respondents in the proportions indicated above in paragraph
16. |
|
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 |