|
Telecom Costs Order CRTC 2007-5
|
|
Ottawa, 14
March 2007 |
|
Application for costs by Public Interest Law Centre on behalf of the
Consumers Association of Canada (Manitoba Branch), Manitoba Society of
Seniors, and Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin – Review of price
cap framework, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2006-5
|
|
Reference:
8678-C12-200605553 and 4754-282 |
1. |
By letter
dated 12 December 2006, the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC) applied
for costs on behalf of Consumers Association of Canada (Manitoba
Branch), Manitoba Society of Seniors, and Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew
Okimowin (CAC/MSOS/MKIO) with respect to their 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 21 December 2006, TELUS Communications Company (TCC) filed
comments, and by letter dated 29 December 2006, Bragg Communications
Inc. (EastLink) filed comments. |
3. |
PILC did not
file a reply to the comments submitted regarding the application. |
|
The application
|
4. |
PILC
submitted that CAC/MSOS/MKIO 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. |
PILC filed a
bill of costs with its application, claiming a total amount of
$27,883.50 for legal and consultant fees, as well as disbursements. PILC
did not name any costs respondents or take any position as to the
allocation of its costs. |
6. |
In answer to
the application, TCC stated that it did not oppose PILC's entitlement to
costs or the amount claimed. TCC 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: Bell
Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant),
Bell Canada, and Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel)
(collectively, 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). TCC submitted that any costs
ordered should be allocated among the parties in proportion to their
respective share of telecommunications operating revenues (TORs). |
7. |
In answer to the application, EastLink submitted that while it did not
oppose PILC's costs application, it was unable to comment on PILC'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
|
8. |
The
Commission finds that PILC has satisfied the criteria for an award of
costs set out in subsection 44(1) of the Rules. Specifically, the
Commission finds that CAC/MSOS/MK1O 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. |
9. |
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. |
10. |
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 PILC was
necessarily and reasonably incurred and should be allowed. |
11. |
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 therefore be cost respondents. |
12. |
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. |
13. |
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% |
14. |
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
|
15. |
The
Commission approves the application by PILC, on behalf of
CAC/MSOS/MKIO, for an award of costs with respect to their participation
in the PN 2006-5 proceeding. |
16. |
Pursuant to
subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission
fixes the costs to be paid to PILC at $27,883.50. |
17. |
The
Commission directs that the award of costs to PILC be paid forthwith by
the costs respondents in the proportions indicated above in paragraph
13. |
|
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 |