Search

Telecom Order CRTC 2025-313

PDF version

Gatineau, 24 November 2025

File numbers: 1011-NOC2021-0102, 4754-693, 4754-728, and 8665-C209-202105288

Determination of costs award with respect to the participation of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Coalition in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation 2021-102

Application

  1. By letter dated 7 April 2022, the Deafness Advocacy Association Nova Scotia [DAANS]Footnote 1, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of the Deaf [NLAD], and the Ontario Association of the Deaf [OAD] (collectively, the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Coalition [DHH Coalition]) applied for costs with respect to its participation in the proceeding initiated by the filing of the Canadian Administrator of VRS [video relay service] (CAV) Inc.’s (CAV) 2022 annual budget review (the CAV proceeding) [the first costs application].
  2. The CAV filed an answer to the first costs application on 19 April 2022, questioning the relevancy of the DHH Coalition’s submissions to the CAV proceeding. The CAV raised concerns about the rates used for costs claimed for one consultant who claimed time as an external junior consultant but appeared to be, according to the CAV, an in-house consultant.
  3. On 29 April 2022, the DHH Coalition replied to the CAV’s answer and filed an amendment to its first costs application to include an additional 2.5 hours of work ($275) in response to the CAV’s answer.
  4. By way of a Secretary General letter dated 9 May 2022, the Commission determined that the DHH Coalition’s submissions, while out of scope of the CAV proceeding, provided insights that were within the scope of the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation 2021-102 (the VRS proceeding). The Commission therefore transferred the submissions and the related costs application to the record of the VRS proceeding.
  5. By letter dated 15 January 2024, the DHH Coalition applied for costs with respect to its participation in the VRS proceeding (the second costs application). In the VRS proceeding, the Commission undertook a comprehensive review of VRS to assess whether it efficiently addresses the needs of Canadians with hearing and speech disabilities, among other matters.
  6. On 25 January 2024, Bell Canada; Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of Videotron Ltd. (Quebecor); Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers); and TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS) collectively filed an answer in response to the DHH Coalition’s second costs application. Commission staff sent a request for information (RFI) to the DHH Coalition on 26 February 2024. On 15 March 2024, the DHH Coalition filed a reply to the RFI and amended its second costs application.
  7. The DHH Coalition submitted that it had met the criteria for an award of costs set out in section 68 of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules of Procedure) because it represented a group or class of subscribers that had an interest in the outcome of the proceeding, it had assisted the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters that were considered, and it had participated in a responsible way.
  8. With respect to the group or class of subscribers that the DHH Coalition submitted it represents, the DHH Coalition explained that it represents the interests of Deaf Canadians who use Sign language to communicate and who rely on VRS to efficiently communicate with their hearing peers. In particular, the DHH Coalition represents the interests of Deaf Canadians in Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. The DHH Coalition also submitted that its contribution did not duplicate that of any other public interest parties.

Details of the costs claimed

  1. Through its two amended costs applications, the DHH Coalition requested that the Commission fix its costs at a combined total of $49,744.02, consisting of $49,545.00 in consultant fees and $199.02 in disbursements. The DHH Coalition filed a bill of costs with its applications.
  2. The DHH Coalition claimed 267.75 hours at a rate of $110 per hour for work performed by one external consultant ($29,452.50), and 42.75 days at a rate of $470 per day for work performed by in-house consultants ($20,092.50). This included 18.75 hours to prepare the two costs applications ($2,062.50) and 18.5 hours to correct errors and prepare the replies to answers and RFIs related to both costs applications ($2,035.00).
  3. In the first costs application, related to the CAV proceeding, the DHH Coalition submitted that the appropriate parties to be required to pay any costs awarded by the Commission (the costs respondents) are the CAV, the National Contribution Fund, and the telecommunications service providers (TSPs) named as costs respondents in Telecom Notices of Consultation 2013-155 and 2014-188. In the second costs application, related to the VRS proceeding, the DHH Coalition submitted that the appropriate costs respondents are the TSPs that participated in the VRS proceeding.

Answer

  1. In a joint answer to the second costs application, Bell Canada, Quebecor, Rogers, and TELUS prompted the Commission to inquire whether the costs submitted by the DHH Coalition satisfy the criteria for an award of costs set out under section 68 of the Rules of Procedure. They specifically questioned the rates used by a DHH Coalition consultant who claimed costs as both an in-house and external consultant. The companies also challenged the total amount of costs claimed by costs applicants in the VRS proceeding.

RFI

  1. On 26 February 2024, Commission staff sent an RFI to the DHH Coalition, asking it to clarify some elements of the second costs application, including the employment status of one Deaf Spectrum Society of Nova Scotia (DSSNS) consultant as an in-house or external consultant.
  2. On 15 March 2024, the DHH Coalition clarified that the DSSNS consultant’s employment status changed over the course of the proceeding, which explained why the claim was for an in-house consultant fee for a period of time and then for an external consultant fee afterwards. For clarity, the DHH Coalition confirmed that the in-house consultant rate was applied for the period during which the consultant was a salaried DSSNS employee, and that the external junior consultant rate was applied for the period starting when the consultant occupied an unsalaried position.
  3. Together with its response to the RFI, the DHH Coalition again amended its second costs application, to increase the total amount claimed to include an additional 16 hours of work ($1,760) associated with preparing and filing its reply and responding to the RFI.

Amendment request

  1. On 24 February 2025, the DSSNS filed, through legal counsel, a request to amend the DHH Coalition’s costs application in the VRS proceeding. The DSSNS requested to reduce the costs claimed by the DHH Coalition for the VRS proceeding (i.e., the second costs application) from $45,551.52 to $35,566.52. The DSSNS explained that this reduction in costs better reflected the employment status of the organization’s former consultant in the VRS proceeding.
  2. In the DSSNS’s view, the DHH Coalition ought to have claimed this consultant’s fees at the rate of internal consultant for the entire proceeding, rather than claiming a combination of rates as internal and external consultant. Notwithstanding the consultant’s change in position from a salaried to an unsalaried position, the DSSNS asserted that, during the period for which fees are claimed, the consultant continued actively managing the day-to-day operations of the organization, had no other clients than the costs applicant, and continued to use the organization’s tools and equipment.
  3. On 28 March 2025, the DHH Coalition replied to the DSSNS’s amendment request. The DHH Coalition submitted that the DSSNS left the DHH Coalition on 6 July 2024, and that it had not been notified of the request.
  4. The DHH Coalition reiterated its position, as stated in its replies on 29 April 2022 and 15 March 2024, that it had correctly applied the rate of internal consultant when the consultant was occupying a salaried position and the rate of external consultant when the consultant occupied an unsalaried position. The DHH Coalition further disputed some of the DSSNS’s statements, explaining that the consultant did not “own” the organization, that the consultant should be allowed to choose the number of clients he takes on, and that the consultant used his personal computer and tools to perform his work.

Commission’s analysis

  1. The criteria for an award of costs are set out in section 68 of the Rules of Procedure, which reads as follows:
    1. The Commission must determine whether to award final costs and the maximum percentage of costs that is to be awarded on the basis of the following criteria:

      (a) whether the applicant had, or was the representative of a group or a class of subscribers that had, an interest in the outcome of the proceeding;

      (b) the extent to which the applicant assisted the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters that were considered; and

      (c) whether the applicant participated in the proceeding in a responsible way.

  2. In Telecom Information Bulletin 2016-188, the Commission provided guidance regarding how an applicant may demonstrate that it satisfies the first criterion with respect to its representation of interested subscribers. In the present case, the DHH Coalition has demonstrated that it meets this requirement. In the VRS proceeding, the DHH Coalition represented the interests of Deaf Sign language users located in Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia who use VRS.
  3. The DHH Coalition has also satisfied the remaining criteria through its participation in the VRS proceeding. In particular, the DHH Coalition assisted the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters that were considered, namely by suggesting a legislative and conventional framework and filing information and making recommendations pertaining to the VRS user experience of Deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers. The DHH Coalition also highlighted ways for Deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers to effectively and efficiently make and receive phone calls without any barriers or limitations and ways to improve the user experience of VRS .
  4. The rates claimed in respect of the DHH Coalition’s participation in the proceedings are generally in accordance with the rates established in the Guidelines for the Assessment of Costs (the Guidelines), as set out in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2010-963. In addition, the amounts claimed for the preparation of the costs applications are within the reasonable range established by the Commission in Telecom Order 2025-97. However, in its review, the Commission identified the costs claimed for answering the RFI and amending the costs applications as requiring adjustment.

Costs claimed for answering the RFI and amending the costs applications

  1. In addition to the costs claimed for filing its initial costs applications, the DHH Coalition amended its two applications to claim supplementary costs for the time spent answering Commission staff’s RFI regarding its applications for costs. This totalled an additional 18.5 hours ($2,035).
  2. The Commission awards costs to reimburse parties for reasonable expenses that were necessary for a party to file submissions that allow the Commission to have a better understanding of the substantive issues in a proceeding pursuant to subparagraph 4(a) of the Guidelines and subsection 70(2) of the Rules of Procedure. This can include reasonable costs to file a costs application because reimbursement for expenses is often critical to ensuring that public interest participants can participate in a meaningful way. However, paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Guidelines state that time claimed must not be excessive, and that the time claimed and awarded in the proceeding or other similar proceedings, among other things, may be taken into account.
  3. While reasonable costs for preparing a costs application can be necessary for participation in a proceeding, time spent responding to an RFI about issues in a costs application is the responsibility of the costs applicant. The additional submissions gave the DHH Coalition an opportunity to adjust its costs applications.
  4. In light of the above, the Commission excludes the costs claimed by the DHH Coalition to respond to Commission staff’s RFI and amend its costs applications, namely $2,035 (18.5 hours).

Amendment request

  1. With respect to the amendment request, the Commission considers that, although the DSSNS had left the DHH Coalition at the time of filing the request, the concerns it raised relate to costs incurred when it was still a member of the DHH Coalition. The Commission therefore finds it appropriate to take the amendment request under consideration.
  2. In Telecom Order 2014-351, the Commission set out factors that can be useful in establishing whether a consultant should be considered internal or external. However, these factors are not exhaustive, especially when facts are in dispute. In this case, it is sufficient to establish whether the consultant was a salaried employee, consistent with paragraph 20 of the Guidelines.Footnote 2 The DHH Coalition filed supporting documents, in confidence, to demonstrate that the consultant occupied a salaried position while performing work related to the proceedings until 12 November 2021. From 13 November 2021 onward, the consultant was unsalaried. The Commission therefore considers that it is appropriate for costs related to this consultant incurred from 13 November 2021 onward to be claimed at the hourly rate of an external consultant.

Costs respondents and allocation of costs

  1. The Commission has generally determined that the appropriate costs respondents to an award of costs are the parties that have a significant interest in the outcome of the proceeding in question and have participated actively in that proceeding. The Commission considers that even though there are two separate costs applications, both relate primarily to the VRS proceeding. As a result, the following parties are the appropriate costs respondents because they had a significant interest in the outcome of the proceeding and participated actively in the proceeding: Bell Canada, including its related companies or divisions Bell Mobility Inc., Bell MTS Inc., Lucky Mobile, Solo Mobile, and Virgin Mobile (collectively, Bell Canada et al.); Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as Eastlink; Cogeco Communications Inc.; Quebecor, including Videotron Ltd. and Freedom Mobile Inc.; Rogers, including Groupe Shaw Group and Shaw Telecom G.P.; Saskatchewan Telecommunications; TBayTel; TELUS; and Xplore Mobile Inc.
  2. The Commission considers that, consistent with its practice, it is appropriate to allocate the responsibility for payment of costs among costs respondents based on their telecommunications operating revenues (TORs) as an indicator of the relative size and interest of the parties involved in the proceeding.Footnote 3
  3. However, as set out in Telecom Order 2015-160, the Commission considers $1,000 to be the minimum amount that a costs respondent should be required to pay, due to the administrative burden that small costs awards impose on both the applicant and costs respondents.
  4. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the responsibility for payment of costs should be allocated as follows:Footnote 4

First costs application

Company Proportion Amount (Total $3,917.50)
Bell Canada et al. 39.54% $1,548.98
Rogers 32.49% $1,272.80
TELUS 27.97% $1,095.72

Second costs application

Company Proportion Amount (Total $43,791.52)
Bell Canada et al. 36.22% $15,861.29
Rogers 29.76% $13,032.35
TELUS 25.63% $11,223.77
Quebecor 8.39% $3,674.11

Directions regarding costs

  1. The Commission approves the applications by the DHH Coalition for costs with respect to its participation in the VRS proceedings.
  2. Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the total costs to be paid to the DHH Coalition at $47,709.02.
  3. The Commission directs that the award of costs to the DHH Coalition be paid forthwith by Bell Canada et al., Rogers Communications Canada Inc., TELUS Communications Inc., and Quebecor Media Inc., according to the proportions set out in paragraph 33.

Secretary General

Related documents

Date modified: