ARCHIVED -  Taxation Order CRTC 1987-4

Taxation Order

Ottawa, 12 May 1987

Taxation Order CRTC: 1987-4

In re: NorthwesTel Inc. - General Increase in Rates, Telecom Decision CRTC 87-3

Janet Yale, for the Consumers' Association of Canada (CAC)

William J. Law, for NorthwesTel Inc. (NorthwesTel)

TAXATION OF COSTS OF CAC

Taxing Officer: Barbara Ursel

This order constitutes the taxation of costs awarded to CAC in the case of NorthwesTel Inc. - General Increase in Rates, Telecom Decision CRTC 87-3, dated 26 February 1987. Costs were awarded to CAC on 16 January 1987, at the close of the hearing, in accordance with subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules).

CAC submitted a Bill of Costs in the amount of $25,844.08, consisting of counsel fees of $10,490.00, financial analyst fees of $7,575.00 and disbursements of $7,779.08. In the course of the taxation, which proceeded by way of written submissions, the following issue was raised and discussed by the parties.

Child Care Expenses incurred by CAC Volunteer

As part of its disbursements, CAC claimed $110.00 for child care expenses incurred by a CAC volunteer in order for her to attend the hearing. NorthwesTel objected to this claim and submitted that such expenses do not meet the requirement of being necessarily and reasonably incurred by the intervener in connection with its intervention as set out in paragraph 44(6)(b) of the Rules. NorthwesTel further submitted that the awarding of indirect costs, such as the child care costs claimed, would be a precedent for the Commission and "a costly precedent as interveners in other proceedings before the Commission may apply for other indirect costs in the absence of clearly defined guidelines".

In reply, CAC submitted that the child care expenses were necessarily and reasonably incurred in respect of CAC's participation in the proceeding, and distinguished child care expenses of CAC volunteers from those of CAC employees. CAC stated that employees with children should be responsible for child care arrangements and their child care expenses should not be recovered in cost awards. However, CAC submitted that expenditures "incurred by a volunteer to attend a hearing whether travel, hotel or babysitting are direct out-of-pocket expenses which would not otherwise be incurred". CAC also noted that it was its policy to reimburse its volunteers for home care expenses when incurred for the purpose of participation in CAC activities.

I have decided that the starting point in determining this issue on taxation, after the Commission has decided that an intervener is fully entitled to costs, is the words of paragraph 44(6)(b) of the Rules, which stipulate that the taxation of costs "shall not exceed those necessarily and reasonably incurred by the intervener in connection with its intervention".

NorthwesTel did not dispute the quantum of the claim made by CAC for child care expenses, nor that child care arrangements were necessary for the attendance at the hearing of the CAC volunteer. What NorthwesTel did dispute was that the child care expenses, which it characterized as indirect expenses, were necessarily and reasonably incurred by CAC in connection with its intervention.

I agree with NorthwesTel that child care expenses are indirect expenses, but I am of the view that the distinction between direct and indirect expenses is of little importance because all expenses, direct and indirect alike, must "necessarily and reasonably" be incurred to be recovered through an award of costs. Indirect expenses such as airfare, hotels and meals are routinely allowed in costs awards, and I note that NorthwesTel did not oppose the awarding of costs to CAC for these expenses of the CAC volunteer.

I am faced, therefore, with only one consideration: were the child care expenses necessarily and reasonably incurred by CAC in connection with its intervention? In answering this question I have taken into account that CAC would actually incur this expense given its policy to reimburse its volunteers for home care expenses incurred for the purpose of participation in CAC activities.

I have, therefore, concluded that the child care expenses were necessarily and reasonably incurred by CAC in connection with its intervention, and accordingly, allow the $110.00 claimed.

NorthwesTel did not object to any of the other costs claimed in CAC's Bill of Costs. These costs fall under the following three heads.

Counsel Fees

I will allow the amount requested for preparation by counsel, namely $6,790.00, consisting of 9.7 days of preparation taxed at $700.00 per day, and the amount requested for attendance at the hearing, namely, $2,800.00, consisting of 3.5 days taxed at $800.00 per day. I will also allow the amount requested for travel to the hearing, namely, $900.00, consisting of 3.6 days of travel taxed at $250.00 per day. I note that these daily rates are the same as those allowed in Taxation Order 1987-2

Fees for Financial Analyst

I will allow the amount requested for preparation by the financial analyst, namely, $4,950.00, consisting of 9 days of preparation taxed at $550.00 per day, and the amount requested for attendance at the hearing, namely, $1,800.00, consisting of 3 days taxed at $600.00 per day. I will also allow the amount requested for travel to the hearing, namely, $825.00, consisting of 3.3 days of travel taxed at $250.00 per day. I note that these daily rates are the same as those allowed in Taxation Order 1987-2.

Disbursements

I will allow the amounts claimed by CAC for disbursements, namely, $7,779.08, including the amount claimed for child care expenses as discussed above.

Costs as Taxed

I hereby tax the fees and disbursements as follows:

Fees

Counsel $10,490.00

Financial Analyst 7,575.00

18,065.00

Disbursements

Research $ 390.00

Duplication 263.00

Courier 44.78

Transcripts 1,156.50

Telephone 194.27

Airfare 3,992.00

Taxi and Bus 113.60

Child Care 110.00

Hotel 939.03

Meals and Incidentals 575.90

7,779.08

Total Fees and Disbursements $25,844.08

Barbara Ursel

Legal Counsel

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission