Search

Telecom Order CRTC 2025-350

PDF version

Gatineau, 18 December 2025

File numbers: 1011-NOC2024-0295 and 4754-782

Determination of costs award with respect to the participation of the Manitoba Coalition in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation 2024-295

Application

  1. By letter dated 25 April 2025, the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, Harvest Manitoba, and the Manitoba Branch of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, (collectively, the Manitoba Coalition) applied for costs with respect to its participation in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation 2024-295 (the proceeding). In the proceeding, the Commission called for comments to determine how it can amend the Wireless Code and the Internet Code (the Consumer Protection Codes) by requiring the provision of self-service mechanisms in a way that would be useful to Canadians. The Commission also addressed the amendments to the Telecommunications Act (the Act) set out in An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, which require the Commission to impose the provision of self-service mechanisms that allow Canadians to cancel or modify their plans.
  2. The Commission did not receive any interventions in response to the application for costs.
  3. The Manitoba 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.
  4. With respect to the group or class of subscribers that the Manitoba Coalition has submitted it represents, the Manitoba Coalition explained that this group or class consists of Manitoba consumers, including those who struggle with hunger and poverty, and First Nations, Inuit, and Métis living in Winnipeg. With respect to the specific method by which the Manitoba Coalition has submitted that it represents this group or class, the Manitoba Coalition explained that it conducted independent consumer research and, through the day-to-day operations of its member organizations, engaged and collaborated with Manitobans who struggle with hunger and poverty, and First Nations, Inuit, and Métis living in Winnipeg.
  5. The Manitoba Coalition filed a joint costs application spanning three different proceedings, and the Commission attributes $7,630.40 to this proceeding. This amount consists of $2,305.40 for legal fees and $5,325 for disbursements.Footnote 1 The Manitoba Coalition filed a bill of costs with its application.
  6. The Manitoba Coalition claimed 1.9 hours for external counsel at a rate of $206 per hour to prepare interventions and comments, prepare evidence, and consult with clients ($391.40). The Manitoba Coalition also claimed 11.6 hours for external counsel at a rate of $165 per hour to review the file, prepare interventions and reply comments, and consult with clients ($1,914). Finally, the Manitoba Coalition claimed $5,325 for disbursements for independent consumer research.
  7. The Manitoba Coalition submitted that the telecommunications service providers (TSPs) that have participated in the proceeding are the appropriate parties to be required to pay any costs awarded by the Commission (the costs respondents).
  8. The Manitoba Coalition suggested that the responsibility for payment of costs should be divided among the costs respondents on the basis of their telecommunications operating revenues (TORs).Footnote 2

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 Manitoba Coalition has demonstrated that it meets this requirement. The Manitoba Coalition’s member organizations represent the needs and interests of Manitoba consumers, including those who struggle with hunger and poverty, and First Nations, Inuit, and Métis living in Winnipeg. This group has an interest in the proceeding because such consumers could be affected by its outcome.
  3. The Manitoba Coalition has also satisfied the remaining criteria through its participation in the proceeding. In particular, the Manitoba Coalition’s submissions, especially through its independent consumer research, assisted the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters that were considered. The Manitoba Coalition further assisted the Commission by offering a distinct point of view in the proceeding, presenting a province-specific and consumer-focused perspective, and contributing to the evidentiary record. Notably, the Manitoba Coalition’s submissions included comments on the potential risk for consumers to make uninformed or unsupported decisions when using self-service mechanisms because of the absence of active customer service. These observations affirmed the importance of providing adequate information on products and services through the self-service mechanisms themselves. The Manitoba Coalition also submitted that comparators and readily available access to customer service representatives are essential to the mechanisms’ success. The Manitoba Coalition participated in a responsible way by making reasonable and evidence-based recommendations and maintaining communication with other consumer-oriented interveners throughout the proceeding, which promoted efficiency and minimized duplication of effort.
  4. The rates claimed in respect of legal fees are 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. The Commission finds that the total amount claimed by the Manitoba Coalition was necessarily and reasonably incurred and should be allowed.
  5. 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 the following parties had a significant interest in the outcome of the proceeding and participated actively in the proceeding: Bell Canada;Footnote 3 Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as Eastlink; Bravo Telecom; Cogeco Communications Inc., on behalf of its subsidiary Cogeco Connexion Inc.; Iristel Inc.; Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of its affiliates Videotron Ltd. and Freedom Mobile Inc. and their brands Fizz and VMedia; Rogers Communications Canada Inc., including Groupe Shaw Group and Shaw Telecom G.P. (Rogers); Saskatchewan Telecommunications; SSi Micro Ltd., carrying on business as SSi Canada; TekSavvy Solutions Inc.; TELUS Communications Inc. (TELUS); and Xplore Inc.
  6. 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 TORs as an indicator of the relative size and interest of the parties involved in the proceeding.
  7. 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.

  8. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the responsibility for payment of costs should be allocated as follows:Footnote 4

    Company Proportion Amount
    Bell Canada 39.71% $3.030.34
    Rogers 32.61% $2,488.22
    TELUS 27.68% $2,111.84

Directions regarding costs

  1. The Commission approves the application by the Manitoba Coalition for costs with respect to its participation in the proceeding.
  2. Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Act, the Commission fixes the costs to be paid to the Manitoba Coalition at $7,630.40.
  3. The Commission directs that the award of costs to the Manitoba Coalition be paid forthwith by Bell Canada, Rogers Communications Canada Inc., and TELUS Communications Inc. according to the proportions set out in paragraph 16.

Secretary General

Related documents

Date modified: