|
|
|
Ottawa, 24 November 1989
|
|
Taxation Order CRTC: 1989-6
|
|
In re: British Columbia Telephone Company - 1988 B.C. Tel Construction Program Review, Telecom Decision CRTC 89-13 and Telecom Costs Order CRTC 89-4
|
|
Richard J. Gathercole, for the B.C. Old Age Pensioners' Organization, Counsel of Senior Citizens' Organizations, Senior Citizens' Association, Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C., West End Seniors' Network and Local 217 of the IWA Seniors' (BCOAPO et al)
|
|
Michael P. Redmond, for British Columbia Telephone Company (B.C. Tel)
|
|
TAXATION OF COSTS OF BCOAPO ET AL
|
|
Taxing Officer: Lorne Abugov
|
This order constitutes the taxation of costs awarded to BCOAPO et al in the case of British Columbia Telephone Company - 1988 Construction Program Review, announced in CRTC Telecom Public Notice 1988-39, dated 19 August 1988 Costs were awarded to BCOAPO et al by Telecom Costs Order CRTC 89-4, dated 4 April 1989, in accordance with subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure.
|
|
BCOAPO et al submitted a Bill of Costs in the amount of $8,088.78, consisting of $8,075.00 of fees for counsel and $13.78 in disbursements. The taxation proceeded by way of written submissions.
|
|
In its Answer, B.C. Tel did not object to the amount of time claimed for preparation and attendance at the review meeting by counsel for BCOAPO et al, but did object to the quantum of the counsel fee requested, namely $190 per hour for preparation and $1,330 per day for attendance.
|
B.C. Tel noted that BCOAPO et al was asking for an hourly rate for preparation time and a per diem rate for attendance which represented increases of 8.5% and 33% respectively over the amounts awarded to the same counsel in Taxation Order 1989-3. B.C. Tel suggested that the rates of $175 per hour for preparation and $1,000 per day for attendance set by the Taxing Officer in Taxation Order 1989-3 continue to be appropriate and should not be increased. In support of this view, B.C. Tel noted the short time period between the 1988-1989 B.C. Tel Revenue Requirement hearing in September 1988 and the Construction Program Review meeting in March 1989, as well as the fact that the issues involved in the review meeting were less complex than those raised in the revenue requirement hearing. The company pointed out that counsel for BCOAPO et al had offered no justification for the proposed increases in counsel fees apart from the argument that the increases reflected both inflation and the additional experience acquired during the revenue requirement proceeding.
|
|
In its reply, BCOAPO et al relied upon the arguments advanced at the time of filing its Bill of Costs.
|
For the purpose of establishing the appropriate rates for counsel preparation and attendance time, I have taken as my starting point Taxation Order 1989-3. In that case, as noted, the Taxing Officer allowed amounts of $175 per hour for preparation and $1,000 per day for attendance. In this Bill of Costs, BCOAPO et al has claimed for preparation and attendance time rates of $190 per hour and $1,330 per day, respectively. The amounts sought by Mr. Gathercole for preparation and for attendance represent increases of 8.5% and 33% respectively over the fees allowed by the Taxing Officer in April 1989. In my opinion, BCOAPO et al has advanced no compelling reason for the disproportionately larger increase proposed for attendance time than that proposed for preparation time. Rather, I consider that Mr. Gathercole's arguments with respect to inflation and additional experience relate equally to preparation and attendance. Therefore, to the extent that any upward adjustment to the rates allowed in Taxation Order 1989-3 is warranted, such adjustment should reflect approximately the same percent of increase for both preparation and attendance.
|
|
In assessing whether any increase in counsel fees attributable to inflation or to additional experience acquired by Mr. Gathercole is warranted, I note B.C. Tel's point that a period of only six months transpired between the review meeting in the current proceeding and the company's earlier revenue requirement hearing. According to the consumer price index for Vancouver published by Statistics Canada, inflation increased by approximately 2% between the period of 1 September 1988 and 28 February 1989. Accordingly, for purposes of this taxation, I consider that an inflation increment of approximately 2% is an appropriate one to adopt with respect to the six month period in question.
|
B.C. Tel also argued that matters raised in the revenue requirement proceeding tended to be more complex than those raised in the present proceeding. I note that in Taxation Order 1984-2, the Taxing Officer was confronted with very similar submissions from B.C. Tel, and concluded as follows:
|
|
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.
|
I am not persuaded that the facts of the present case warrant any deviation from the practice established in Taxation Order 1984-2, and I have concluded, therefore, that an increment claimed by Mr. Gathercole for additional experience acquired is warranted under the circumstances.
|
In light of these considerations, I have concluded that some upward adjustment of the rates for preparation and attendance in Taxation Order 1989-3 is warranted. However, in the circumstances, I consider the increases proposed by Mr. Gathercole to be excessive. Instead, I am prepared to allow an hourly rate of $180 for preparation time and a per diem rate of $1,050 for attendance time, representing an increase of approximately 3% for the former and 5% for the latter relative to the rates previously allowed for Mr. Gathercole.
|
|
Accordingly, I have taxed 25 hours at $180 an hour and 2.5 days at $1050 per day for a total of $7,125.
|
|
Costs as Taxed
|
|
I hereby tax the fees and disbursements as follows:
|
|
Fees :
|
|
Counsel $7,125.00
|
|
Disbursements:
|
|
Postage 5.38
|
|
Photocopies 8.40
|
|
Total Fees and Disbursements $7,138.78
|
|
Lorne Abugov
Counsel
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
|
|
|