|
|
|
Ottawa, 20 September 1985
|
|
Taxation Order CRTC 1985-4
|
|
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
|
|
R.J. Gathercole for the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of British Columbia, B.C. Old Age Pensioners' Organization, Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations, West End Seniors' Network, Kennedy House Senior Recreation Centre, Lower Mainland Association of Information and Referral Services, and New Westminster Council of Women (FAPG et al)
|
|
P.W. Butler, for British Columbia Telephone Company (B.C. Tel)
|
|
TAXATION OF COSTS OF FAPG ET AL
|
|
Taxing officer: Allan Rosenzveig
|
This order constitutes the taxation of costs awarded to FAPG et al 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 FAPG et al on 12 March 1985, at the close of the central hearing, in accordance with section 44 of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure.
|
|
FAPG et al submitted a Bill of Costs in the amount of $37,649.27, consisting of fees of $36,146.25 and disbursements of $1,503.02, 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.
|
|
Contribution Towards Costs
|
|
B.C. Tel noted that counsel for FAPG et al acted for seven groups, and suggested that surely some of them should be able to contribute towards some of the legal costs. In reply, FAPG et al advised that none of the groups represented is in a position to make any contribution to the costs associated with the intervention, and argued that those costs would be the same if fewer groups had been represented and that the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure makes no reference to the financial status of intervenors. In my view, these points constitute a complete answer to the company's submission.
|
|
Fees
|
|
B.C. Tel objected to the amount of time claimed both for preparation and for attendance at the hearing by counsel, the legal assistant and the articling student for FAPG et al.
|
|
With regard to preparation, the company suggested that counsel, the legal assistant and articling student should be allowed 50 hours each rather than the 167.5, 72.5 and 63 hours claimed. B.C. Tel argued that most of the issues raised by counsel for FAPG et al had been raised by him in previous proceedings, and so preparation would have been less intense than previously.
|
|
In reply, FAPG et al suggested that the preparation time was reasonable, arguing that many issues naturally recur at rate hearings and that the issue of rate rebalancing had to be dealt with by the interveners as the company had introduced it into the proceeding, that preparation done by the legal assistant and articling student had reduced the amount of preparation time required by counsel, and that the relation of preparation time to attendance at the hearing was within the general guidelines previously established by the Commission.
|
|
I note that the Bill of Costs submitted by FAPG et al relates to the central hearing, pre-hearing conference, the interim rate increase application and the most recent B.C. Tel construction program review. In keeping with the relationship followed in previous taxations, of two days of preparation for each day of attendance at a hearing, I have concluded that the 167.5 hours requested for preparation by counsel and the 72.5 hours requested for preparation by the legal assistant, are within the established guideline, and that they are reasonable. While the 63 hours preparation requested with regard to the articling student is not within that guideline, I note the statement by FAPG et al to the effect that only some of the hours of attendance by the articling student were claimed. This would distort the relationship between preparation time and attendance time. In any event, the total preparation time requested falls within the established guideline. In the circumstances, I will allow the amount of time claimed for preparation by FAPG et al for counsel, the legal assistant and the articling student.
|
|
B.C. Tel suggested that only 10 days attendance should be allowed for each of counsel and the legal assistant, rather than the 13.25 days submitted for each, on the basis that the Commission should not encourage attendance by paying all "assistants and helpers" who attend. The company did not, however, suggest reducing the 3.5 days claimed with respect to attendance by the articling student.
|
|
In reply, FAPG et al stated that the Bill of Costs requests costs for attendance of only one assistant at any time, and that the use of a legal assistant and an articling student rather than a second lawyer is an attempt to keep costs down. FAPG et al also noted that B.C. Tel appeared to have at least five "assistants and helpers" at the hearing at all times whose costs are presumably included in the company's hearing costs.
|
|
I find that the amount of time claimed for attendance does not exceed that necessarily and reasonably incurred by FAPG et al in connection with its intervention, and accordingly allow 13.25 days for each of counsel and the legal assistant, and 3.5 days for the articling student.
|
B.C. Tel also questioned the hourly rates charged for preparation time and attendance. With regard to preparation, the company suggested $100.00 an hour for counsel and $25.00 an hour for each of the legal assistant and articling student, instead of the $105.00 an hour for counsel and the $27.50 an hour claimed for each of the legal assistant and articling student. With regard to attendance, the company suggested $800.00 and $200.00 a day, instead of $850.00 and $210.00. The reason given was that this would be in line with Taxation Order 1985-2, dated 13 February 1985.
|
In reply, FAPG et al pointed out that the construction program review to which Taxation Order 1985-2 relates took place early in 1984, and that the amounts requested for the current proceeding include a small increase over those set out in that Order, reflecting cost increases and the added experience of counsel.
|
I have decided that the starting point for the quantum of fees to be awarded to FAPG et al in respect of this proceeding should be the amounts awarded to this intervener in Taxation Order 1985-2, with a small increment for inflation. There, the fees allowed for preparation and attendance by counsel were $100.00 per hour and $800.00 per day, respectively, and those allowed for preparation and attendance by the legal assistant were $25.00 per hour and $200.00 per day, respectively. Accordingly, I have decided to allow the rates requested for counsel and the legal assistant, namely $105.00 per hour for preparation and $850.00 per day for attendance by counsel, and $27.50 per hour for preparation and $210.00 per day for attendance by the legal assistant. B.C. Tel did not suggest that the rates for the legal assistant and the articling student should be different, and I have decided to allow the rates requested for the articling student, namely $27.50 per hour for preparation and $210.00 per day for attendance.
|
|
Based on the amount of time and the rates allowed, total fees for counsel, the legal assistant and the articling student are $28,850.00, $4,828.75 and $2,467.50, respectively. Total fees are taxed in the amount of $36,146.25.
|
|
Disbursements
|
|
The company did not object to the amounts claimed by FAPG et al for disbursements, namely $1,503.02.
|
|
Costs as taxed
|
|
I hereby tax the fees and disbursements as follows:
|
|
Fees
|
|
Counsel $28,850.00
|
|
Legal Assistant 4,828.75
|
|
Articling Student 2,467.50
|
|
Disbursements
|
|
Consultant and witness
Prof. Marjorie Martin 1,000.00
|
|
Telephone 15.28
|
|
Travel, Business
expense & parking 69,15
|
|
Duplication 170.50
|
|
Courier 87.95
|
|
Printers 70.14
|
|
Miscellaneous 90.00
|
|
Total Fees and Disbursements $37,649.27
|
|
Fernand Bélisle
Secretary General
|
|
|