|
Taxation Order
|
|
Ottawa, 16 September 1985
|
|
Taxation Order CRTC 1985-3
|
|
In re: British Columbia Telephone Company - General Increase in Rates, Interim Rate Increase, Telecom Decision CRTC 84-16, 20 June 1984 and British Columbia Telephone Company - General Increase in Rates, Telecom Decision CRTC 85-8, 30 April 1985
|
|
K.J. MacDonald, for Consumers' Association of Canada (CAC)
|
|
P.W. Butler, for British Columbia Telephone Company (B.C. Tel)
|
|
TAXATION OF COSTS OF CAC
|
|
Taxing officer: Allan Rosenzveig
|
This order constitutes the taxation of costs awarded to the CAC in the case of British Columbia Telephone Company - General Increase in Rates, Interim Rate Increase, Telecom Decision CRTC 84-16, 20 June 1984, and British Columbia Telephone Company - General Increase in Rates, Telecom Decision CRTC 85-8, 30 April 1985. Costs were awarded to CAC on 12 March 1985, at the close of the central hearing, in accordance with section 44 of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure.
|
|
CAC submitted a Bill of Costs in the amount of $80,184.09, consisting of fees of $45,125.00 and disbursements of $35,059.09, including costs relating to the most recent B.C. Tel construction program review. In the course of the taxation, which proceeded by way of written submissions, the following issues were raised and discussed by the parties.
|
|
Counsel & Analyst Fees
|
|
B.C. Tel did not object to the amount of time claimed for attendance or for preparation, except time spent while travelling. That issue is dealt with below under the heading "Travelling Time".
|
The company did question the quantum of the fees requested for preparation and attendance, namely $700.00 and $800.00 per day for counsel, and $550.00 and $600.00 per day for the analyst, respectively. B.C. Tel felt that the per diem rates should be $685.00 and $790.00 for preparation and attendance by counsel, and $525.00 and $580.00 for preparation and attendance by the analyst, stating that this would be a slight increase in fees from those allowed in Taxation Order 1984-2. dated 28 November 1984.
|
|
In reply, CAC stated that the percentage increases in fees which it was seeking range from 6.66% to 10% over the fees awarded in the previous B.C. Tel general rate increase proceeding, which occurred more than two years ago. According to CAC, over the same period of time the company's rates for basic local service have increased over 10%. CAC suggested that the services of counsel and of the analyst have increased in value due to their additional years of experience, and that this additional experience increased the value of CAC participation in the present proceeding.
|
|
It is natural that fees will tend to increase over time, reflecting inflation and added experience. I have decided that the per diem fees requested, namely $700.00 and $800.00 for preparation and attendance by counsel, and $550.00 and $600.00 for preparation and attendance by the analyst, are warranted. For counsel, the 16 days preparation are taxed as submitted at $700.00 per day, totalling $11,200.00 and the 14 days attendance are taxed as submitted at $800.00 per day, totalling $11,200.00. For the analyst, the 19.5 days preparation are taxed as submitted at $550.00 per day, totalling $10,725.00 and the 15 days attendance are taxed as submitted at $600.00 per day, totalling $9,000.00.
|
|
Travelling Time
|
|
CAC claimed fees for counsel and for the analyst, 6 days each at $250.00, while travelling. Noting that counsel and the analyst are retained on a monthly basis, B.C. Tel suggested that fees should not be paid with respect to time spent while they are travelling.
|
|
In reply, CAC argued that the principle of compensation for travelling time has been accepted by the Commission, and referred to the decision of taxing officer Greg van Koughnett dated 4 July 1983, pursuant to Telecom Costs Order CRTC 83-2, in which such costs were taxed as submitted. CAC advised that the time spent travelling is normally utilized as preparation time, and that this time had not been included in the calculation of preparation time under other headings. CAC suggested that if there is a fundamental objection to the travel time claimed, at least 3 additional days for preparation should be included in calculating fees for each of counsel and the analyst.
|
|
In determining whether fees submitted for preparation should be allowed, I see no reason for distinguishing between time spent preparing while travelling and other preparation time spent at one's place of work or elsewhere. I note CAC's statement that the time spent travelling is normally utilized as preparation time. The $250.00 per diem fee claimed is far below the per diem fees I have taxed for preparation time and, as requested, I allow $1,500.00 for each of counsel and the analyst while travelling. Accordingly, total counsel fees allowed amount to $23,900.00 and total fees allowed for the analyst amount to $21,225.00.
|
|
In the future, it would appear preferable to include the hours spent preparing while travelling together with other preparation time.
|
|
Disbursements
|
|
B.C. Tel suggested that the total bill, including disbursements, in respect of the expert witnesses should be $18,000.00 rather than the $24,751.76 requested by CAC. The company felt that there was duplication, i.e. that one but not both of the expert witnesses needed to attend the hearing. The company also noted that the per diem fees requested had increased over those requested with respect to the previous B.C. Tel general rate increase proceeding, from $600.00 to $750.00 for Dr. Lawrence I. Gould, and from $750.00 to $900.00 for Dr. Myron J. Gordon.
|
|
In reply, CAC made the following submissions: participation of the two expert witnesses was critical to a full understanding of one of the most important issues in the proceeding, and each had brought a particular expertise; the company had itself called three witnesses on the issue; CAC had been awarded over $19,000.00 with respect to Dr. Gould in the previous B.C. Tel general rate increase proceeding, and the issues in that proceeding were less complex than those in the present one.
|
|
I consider it reasonable for CAC to have presented a panel of two expert witnesses. With regard to the per diem fees requested, I wrote that Dr. Gould's fees were taxed at $600.00 per day with respect to the two previous B.C. Tel general rate increase proceedings, and that the hearings in those proceedings were held in early 1982 and 1983, respectively. I have decided that a per diem fee of $700.00 is warranted with respect to Dr. Gould. Dr. Gordon is more senior, and was called as a witness in this proceeding, rather than only assisting as he did in the previous proceeding. I have decided that a per diem fee of $850.00 is warranted with respect to him. Accordingly, I allow $700.00 per day for Dr. Gould, for the requested 18 days, totalling $12,600.00. For Dr. Gordon, I allow $850.00 per day for the requested 9.5 days, totalling $8,075.00. I have had the benefit of the information, filed by the company in confidence with me, as to the fees of the expert witnesses which it called in this proceeding.
|
|
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 $23,900.00
Analyst 21,225.00
|
|
Disbursements
|
|
Expert witness fees
and disbursements 23,376.76
Courier 17.00
Long Distance calls 197.61
Duplication 468.00
Air Fare 5,306.00
Taxi and rent-a-car 168.64
Hotel 2,454.58
Meals and incidentals 1,695.50
|
|
Total Fees and Disbursements $78,809.09
|
|
Allan Rosenzveig
Counsel
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
|
|
|
|