Telecom Order CRTC 2026-42

PDF version

Gatineau, 5 March 2026

File numbers: 8662-B2-202505066 and 4754-832

Determination of costs award with respect to the participation of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in the proceeding initiated by an application to review and vary Telecom Decision 2025-225

Application

1. By letter dated 13 January 2026, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) applied for costs with respect to its participation in the proceeding initiated by an application to review and vary Telecom Decision 2025-225 (the proceeding). In the proceeding, the Commission considered whether it had failed to consider the scope of the impact that its new notification and reporting requirements for major telecommunications service outages would have on telecommunications service providers (TSPs).
2. The Commission did not receive any interventions in response to the application for costs.
3. PIAC 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. In particular, PIAC submitted that it represents the interests of consumers across Canada, including low-income and vulnerable consumers. PIAC also submitted that all consumers of telecommunications services have an interest in the outcome of the proceeding because timely disclosure and reporting of major service outages is important for keeping consumers informed.
5. PIAC requested that the Commission fix its costs at $1,885, consisting entirely of legal fees. PIAC filed a bill of costs with its application.
6. PIAC claimed 2.75 days for in-house counsel at a rate of $600 per day for work on legal research, reviewing the file, and preparing an intervention ($1,650) and a day at a rate of $235 per day for an in-house articling student to work on legal research ($235).
7. PIAC submitted that the TSPs that participated in the proceeding are the appropriate parties to be required to pay any costs awarded by the Commission (the costs respondents).
8. PIAC suggested that the responsibility for payment of costs should be divided among the costs respondents on the basis of their gross revenues.

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, PIAC has demonstrated that it meets this requirement. PIAC represented the interests of telecommunications consumers across Canada, including low-income and vulnerable consumers, who have an interest in the outcome of the proceeding.
3. PIAC has also satisfied the remaining criteria through its participation in the proceeding. In particular, PIAC’s submissions, especially regarding the potential impact on consumers of postponing or modifying the notification and reporting requirements in Telecom Decision 2025-225 and the public disclosure of outage notifications and related forms, assisted the Commission in developing a better understanding of the matters that were considered. PIAC also participated in a responsible way.
4. The rates claimed in respect of legal fees are in accordance with the rates established in the Guidelines for the Assessment of Costs, as set out in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2010-963. The Commission finds that the total amount claimed by PIAC was necessarily and reasonably incurred and should be allowed.
5. This is an appropriate case in which to fix the costs and dispense with taxation, in accordance with the streamlined procedure set out in Telecom Public Notice 2002-5.
6. 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; Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as Eastlink; Cogeco Communications Inc., on behalf of its subsidiary Cogeco Connexion Inc.; the Independent Telecommunications Providers Association; Iristel Inc., on its own behalf and on behalf of its affiliate Ice Wireless Inc.; Quebecor Media Inc., on behalf of its affiliates Freedom Mobile Inc. and Videotron Ltd.; Rogers Communications Canada Inc., including Groupe Shaw Group and Shaw Telecom G.P. (Rogers); Saskatchewan Telecommunications ; TBayTel; TekSavvy Solutions Inc.; Telesat Corporation; TELUS Communications Inc.; and Xplore Inc.
7. 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. 1
8. 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.
9. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the responsibility for payment of costs should be allocated as follows: 2
| Company | Proportion | Amount |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Rogers | 100% | $1,885 |

Directions regarding costs

1. The Commission approves the application by PIAC for costs with respect to its participation in the proceeding.
2. Pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Telecommunications Act, the Commission fixes the costs to be paid to PIAC at $1,885.
3. The Commission directs that the award of costs to PIAC be paid forthwith by Rogers Communications Canada Inc. according to the proportions set out in paragraph 17. Secretary General

Related documents

• Mandatory notification and reporting of major telecommunications service outages, Telecom Decision CRTC 2025-225, 4 September 2025
• Guidance for costs award applicants regarding representation of a group or a class of subscribers, Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2016-188, 17 May 2016
• Determination of costs award with respect to the participation of the Ontario Video Relay Service Committee in the proceeding initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation 2014-188, Telecom Order CRTC 2015-160, 23 April 2015
• Revision of CRTC costs award practices and procedures, Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-963, 23 December 2010
• New procedure for Telecom costs awards, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2002-5, 7 November 2002

Footnotes

TORs consist of Canadian telecommunications revenues from local and access, long distance, data, private line, Internet, and wireless services.

1

In this order, the Commission has used the TORs of the costs respondents based on their most recent audited financial statements.

2

Date modified:

2026-03-05