|
Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2007-4
|
|
Ottawa, 14
March 2007 |
|
Application for costs by l'Union des consommateurs – Review of
price cap framework, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-5
|
|
Reference:
8678-C12-200605553 and 4754-284 |
1. |
By letter
dated 7 December 2006, l'Union des consommateurs (l'Union) applied 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 20 December 2006, Bragg Communications Inc. (EastLink) filed
comments. By letter dated 21 December 2006, TELUS Communications Company
(TCC) filed comments. By letter dated 20 December 2006, Bell Canada
filed comments on behalf of Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited
Partnership, Bell Canada, and Saskatchewan Telecommunications
(collectively, the Companies). |
3. |
L'Union did
not file a reply to the comments submitted regarding the application. |
|
The application
|
4. |
L'Union
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 PN 2006-5 proceeding, it had participated
responsibly in the PN 2006-5 proceeding, and it had contributed to a
better understanding of the issues by the Commission. |
5. |
L'Union filed
a bill of costs with its application, claiming a total amount of
$15,899.62 for legal and consultant fees, as well as disbursements.
L'Union did not name any costs respondents or take any position as to
the allocation of costs. |
6. |
In their respective answers to the application, both TCC and the
Companies submitted that they did not oppose l'Union's entitlement to
costs or the amount claimed. Both 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; 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. |
7. |
Both TCC and
the Companies suggested that any costs ordered should be allocated among
the parties in proportion to their respective share of
telecommunications operating revenues (TORs). |
8. |
In answer to the application, EastLink submitted that while it did not
oppose l'Union's costs application, it was unable to comment on
l'Union'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
|
9. |
The
Commission finds that l'Union has satisfied the criteria for an award of
costs set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules. Specifically, the
Commission finds that it is representative of a group or class of
subscribers that has an interest in the outcome of the proceeding, it
has participated in a responsible way, and it has contributed to a
better understanding of the issues by the Commission. |
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
award, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2002-5, 7 November 2002. |
11. |
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 l'Union was
necessarily and reasonably incurred and should be allowed. |
12. |
The
Commission notes that the incumbent local exchange carriers and several
of their competitors were active participants in the proceeding and will
be affected by the outcome, and considers that they should be costs
respondents. |
13. |
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. |
14. |
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% |
15. |
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
|
16. |
The
Commission approves the application by l'Union for an award of
costs with respect to its participation in the PN 2006-5 proceeding. |
17. |
Pursuant to
subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission
fixes the costs to be paid to l'Union at $15 899.62. |
18. |
The
Commission directs that the award of costs to l'Union be paid forthwith
by the costs respondents in the proportions indicated above in paragraph
14. |
|
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 |