|
|
|
Ottawa, 28 November 1984
|
|
Taxation Order CRTC 1984-2
|
|
In re: British Columbia Telephone Company, General Increase in Rates, Interim Rate Increase, Telecom Decision CRTC 84-16, 20 June 1984
|
|
- and -
|
|
K.J. MacDonald, for Consumers' Association of Canada (CAC)
|
|
K. Costello, for British Columbia Telephone Company (B.C. Tel)
|
|
TAXATION OF COSTS
|
|
Taxing officer: Greg van Koughnett
|
This taxation arises from Telecom Costs Order CRTC 84-1 (Costs Order 84-1), in which costs were awarded by the Commission to CAC, an intervener in the 1984 B.C. Tel construction program review meeting, an integral part of the interim general rate increase proceeding which resulted in British Columbia Telephone Company, General Increase in Rates, Interim Rate Increase, Telecom Decision CRTC 84-16, 20 June 1984.
|
|
CAC submitted a bill of costs in the amount of $10,705.85, consisting of fees of $8,465.00 and disbursements of $2,240.85.
|
|
In the course of the taxation which proceeded by way of written submissions, the following issues were raised and discussed by the parties.
|
|
Counsel Fees
|
|
B.C. Tel did not object to the amount of time claimed for preparation and attendance at the review meeting by counsel for CAC, but did question the quantum of the counsel fee requested for preparation and for attendance, namely $750.00 per day. Citing the taxation of costs awarded to CAC in the 1983 B.C. Tel rate case, B.C. Tel submitted that the fee for preparation should be less than the fee for attendance at the meeting. In addition, the Company submitted that in taxing counsel fees, the taxing officer should take into account the less formal, less difficult, less complex and less onerous character of the construction program review meeting contrasted with a rate case hearing.
|
|
I have concluded that the Commission' practice of awarding a somewhat lower rate per diem for preparation than for attendance at a public hearing remains appropriate. As to the submission that there is a distinction to be drawn between a rate case hearing and a construction program review meeting, I note that formerly the construction program review process was carried out in the context of a rate case hearing. In light of the complexity of the matters involved in the construction program review, a less formal setting was chosen by the Commission in recent years for the construction program review process. I have concluded that the quantum of the fees to be awarded in respect of this construction program review meeting should not differ from the amount in respect of the 1983 B.C. Tel general rate case.
|
|
Accordingly, in light of previous taxations, I have decided that for preparation time a fee of $650.00 per day is warranted. I will allow for preparation by counsel $650.00 per day for the requested 2.5 days, totalling $1,625.00. I will allow for attendance at the hearing by counsel $750.00 per day for the requested 2 days, totalling $1,500.00. The 2 days travelling are taxed as submitted at $200.00 per day, totalling $400.00. Counsel fees allowed amount to $3,525.00.
|
|
Fees for Financial Analyst
|
|
With regard to the fees of the financial analyst, B.C. Tel did not object to the amount of time claimed for attendance at the hearing, but did question the amount of time claimed for preparation and the rate requested, $550.00 per day for both preparation and attendance at the hearing. Specifically, B.C. Tel submitted that the preparation time of 5.8 days seemed "somewhat excessive".
|
|
In light of the relationship between the number of days of preparation and the number of days attendance at a hearing followed in previous taxations, I have decided to allow 4 days for preparation. I will allow for preparation by the financial analyst $500.00 per day for 4 days, totalling $2,000.00 and for attendance at the review meeting, $550.00 per day for 2 days as submitted, for a total of $1,100.00. The 2 days travelling are taxed as submitted at $200.00 per day, totalling $400.00. Total fees for the financial analyst allowed amount to $3,500.00.
|
|
Disbursements
|
|
With respect to the claim for hotels and meals and incidentals for counsel and the financial analyst in the amount of $374.60, B.C. Tel submitted that both should be disallowed pending the provision of an affidavit of disbursements in respect of these amounts. On 7 September 1984, an affidavit was submitted by CAC sworn by the administrative assistant of the Regulated Industries Program of CAC in respect of the claim. With regard to the claim for meals and incidentals, CAC noted that it was following "the previously accepted practice of calculating those costs in accordance with the allowances determined by the Government of Canada for its employees".
|
|
On 18 September 1984 B.C. Tel filed a submission alleging that the affidavit was deficient in that it was not sworn by the party who incurred the disbursements and did not swear that the disbursements were necessary and properly incurred. Further, it was submitted that Exhibit B to the affidavit, relating to preparation time for the financial analyst, should have been the subject of a separate affidavit sworn by the financial analyst. I do not view these refinements as essential. Accordingly, I have allowed these amounts as claimed.
|
|
B.C. Tel did not object to the other amounts claimed by CAC for disbursements.
|
|
Costs as taxed
|
|
I hereby tax the fees and disbursements as follows:
|
|
Fees
|
|
Counsel $3,525.00
|
|
Financial Analyst 3,500.00
|
|
Débours
|
|
Duplication 34.50
|
|
Air fare 1,686.00
|
|
Taxi and bus fare 45.75
|
|
Hotel 275.40
|
|
Meals and incidentals 199.20
|
|
Total Fees and Disbursements $9,265.85
|
|
Greg van Koughnett Associate
General Counsel
Telecommunications
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
|
|
|