Deaf-blind advocacy groups want CRTC review of costs decision

Three advocacy groups for deaf and blind individuals are asking the CRTC to review a decision it made earlier this year in which it did not award one of them the costs they expected to receive for taking part in a proceeding, a matter which they say raises questions about the future of participation by accessibility groups. According to the Canadian National Society of the Deaf-Blind (CNSDB), the Deaf-Blind Planning Committee, and the Deaf Wireless Canada Consultative Committee (DWCC), which all submitted nearly identical applications to the CRTC dated Aug. 12, the commission is not doing enough to make its processes accessible for the people they represent. They point to guidelines on the CRTC’s site for how it intends to make its public proceedings accessible for people with disabilities. But the applications state that the CRTC “cannot claim to uphold accessibility while applying outdated, hearing-centric cost recovery practices” they say go against the federal government’s Accessible Canada Act and the commission’s own accessibility plan and progress reporting. In May, the CRTC released a decision in which it did not award all of the costs sought by the CNSDB for work to respond to its call for comments on its review of video relay service, launched in 2021. In it, the commission found that a “reasonable amount of time” to claim for the filing of a costs application is typically no more than 24 hours and chose to reduce the total time claimed by the CNSDB based on that timeline. It also excluded costs claimed by the group to respond to commission staffs’ request for information, saying that time is “the responsibility of the costs applicant.” But according to the advocacy groups, the CRTC was wrong to characterize the CNSDB’s 52 hours of “specialized accessibility work” and a further $2,449.95 in disbursements for ASL interpretation by the DWCC as non-recoverable “RFI response” costs, “despite clear evidence that these services were essential to enabling deaf and deaf-blind participants to receive legal advice and participate meaningfully.” “In fact, these costs are the exact type of expenses the CRTC committed to centralize and cover under its own 2023-2025 Accessibility Plan and confirmed as implemented in its 2024 Accessibility Progress Report,” they state. The advocates worry that the decision will “not only weaken” their ability to participate in proceedings, but also “signal to all equity-seeking groups that accessibility commitments in CRTC proceedings are optional…” “The post hoc introduction of the cap — after cost applications had already been filed — undermines regulatory certainty and chills future participation by public interest and accessibility-focused organizations,” they state. They are looking for the CRTC to officially recognize that accessibility-related coordination is “integral, not optional,” that cost recovery caps have to be “grounded in transparent, evidence-based policy,” and that procedural decisions “must align with the commission’s legal obligations and stated commitment to equity, accessibility, and inclusion.” They want to see the “retroactive” 24-hour cap on recoverable preparation time removed and for the full recovery of accessibility-related costs to be allowed, among additional requests for reimbursement of money spent on proceedings by the groups. They also want clarity that accessibility-related disbursements and preparation time are eligible costs “when reasonably and necessarily incurred,” and confirmation that no fixed hourly caps will be placed on cost awards without public consultation. They note the May decision was released just days after the commission launched its call for comments on a “new approach to funding public interest participation in commission proceedings.” “Imposing such a cap in advance before completing the proceeding preempted stakeholder input, undermined the credibility of the consultation processes, and created the appearance of a post hoc, unilateral policy shift. Rather than awaiting the outcome of the broader systemic review that was launched just days earlier, the commission applied a rigid and unannounced limit without public notice, defined criteria, or a transparent evidentiary basis,” they state. “By treating accessibility-related coordination work as non-recoverable, the commission sends a message that such work is not valued. Devaluing accessibility organizations’ work risks deterring future participation by equity-seeking groups, especially those best positioned to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate input.” “Good faith support goes beyond token gestures - it involves proactively ensuring that participants have the resources, time, and recognition to contribute fully and effectively. This principle is essential to fostering trust between the commission and equity-seeking groups, reinforcing the integrity of the regulatory process, and fulfilling the commission’s mandate to promote inclusive, accessible participation for all Canadians.” news@thewirereport.ca

Deaf-blind advocacy groups want CRTC review of costs decision

Regulatory |
By Wire Report Staff
| August 20, 2025

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Deaf-blind advocacy groups want CRTC review of costs decision

Regulatory | By Wire Report Staff | August 20, 2025

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Regulatory |
By Wire Report Staff
| August 20, 2025