|
|
|
Ottawa, 14 March 1990
|
|
Taxation Order CRTC: 1990-1
|
|
In re: British Columbia Telephone Company - 1989 B.C. Tel Construction Program Review, CRTC Telecom Public Notice 1989-38 and Telecom Costs Order CRTC 89-6
|
|
Richard J. Gathercole and W. Anita Braha, for the B.C. Old Age Pensioners' Organization, Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations, Senior Citizens' Association, Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C., West End Seniors' Network and Local 1-217 of the IWA Seniors' (BCOAPO et al).
|
|
Ralph A. Davis, for British Columbia Telephone Company (B.C. Tel).
|
|
TAXATION OF COSTS OF BCOAPO ET AL
|
|
Taxing Officer: John Keogh
|
This order constitutes the taxation of costs awarded to BCOAPO et al in the case of British Columbia Telephone Company - 1989 Construction Program Review, announced in CRTC Telecom Public Notice 1989-38. Costs were awarded to BCOAPO et al by Telecom Costs Order CRTC 89-6, in accordance with subsection 44(1) of the CRTC Telecommunications Rules of Procedure (the Rules).
|
|
BCOAPO et al submitted a Bill of Costs in the amount of $6,814.91, consisting of $6,800.00 in fees and $14.91 in disbursements. In the course of the taxation, which proceeded by way of written submissions, the following issues were raised and discussed.
|
|
Counsel Fees
|
|
In its comments, dated 25 January 1990, B.C. Tel noted that though BCOAPO et al states the amount requested for senior counsel are the same as were approved in Taxation Order 1989-6 for the same senior counsel, in fact the amounts were claimed but not approved in the Taxation Order.
|
Taxation Order 1989-6, for the B.C. Tel 1988 Construction Program Review, allowed an hourly rate of $180 for preparation time and a per diem rate of $1,050 for attendance for senior counsel. B.C. Tel states it would find acceptable a taxation based upon these rates. Further, B.C. Tel finds the time expended by senior counsel to be reasonable and consistent with past hearings.
|
|
B.C. Tel submits the costs requested for junior counsel were not "necessarily and reasonably incurred" within the meaning of paragraph 44(6)(b) of the Rules. The company noted in its comments that at the B.C. Tel 1988 Construction Program Review, BCOAPO et al was represented only by senior counsel and appeared to have no need for assistance from junior counsel. B.C. Tel submits the attendance of junior counsel appeared unnecessary, noting that junior counsel took no active role in the hearing. However, B.C. Tel states that if it is found reasonable that BCOAPO et al was represented by two counsel then the company accepts that the amount claimed for junior counsel is reasonable and in line with previous taxation orders.
|
In its reply, BCOAPO et al indicates that it inadvertently requested for senior counsel the amounts claimed rather than approved in Taxation Order 1989-6. BCOAPO et al says it only intended to request the same rates for senior counsel as were approved in Taxation Order 1989-6, i.e. $180 per hour for preparation time and $1,050 per day for attendance.
|
|
With respect B.C. Tel's objections respecting junior counsel, BCOAPO et al notes the time expended on preparation for the hearing by both counsel was approximately the same as was expended by senior counsel for the B.C. Tel 1988 Construction Program Review. BCOAPO et al submits the fact that a portion of the preparation time was done by junior counsel is to the benefit of B.C. Tel in terms of the costs they must pay.
|
|
BCOAPO et al states that it has been the practice in the past for someone in addition to senior counsel to attend B.C. Tel construction program review hearings and this has been recognized in past taxation orders. The workload at the B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre was such that a second person could not assist senior counsel with the B.C. Tel 1988 Construction Program Review.
|
|
BCOAPO et al submits junior counsel assisted in the preparation, including the preparation of inter- rogatories and cross-examination. Though junior counsel did not do any direct questioning of B.C. Tel's witnesses, BCOAPO et al states her attendance at the hearing was of assistance to senior counsel. BCOAPO et al adds that in past years the person assisting senior counsel at construction program review hearings rarely participated in questioning.
|
|
In light of BCOAPO et al's statement in its reply that it only intended to request for senior counsel the same rates as were approved in Taxation Order 1989-6 and B.C. Tel's indication that it would find such rates acceptable, I will allow for senior counsel an hourly rate of $180 for preparation time and a per diem rate of $1,050 for attendance. Thus, for senior counsel I have taxed 15.3 hours at $180 an hour and 1.7 days at $1,050 per day for a total of $4,539.
|
|
With respect to junior counsel, I note BCOAPO et al's submission that she assisted in the preparation of interrogatories and cross-examination and that her attendance at the hearing was of assistance to senior counsel. I also note that in three of the previous four B.C. Tel construction program reviews, senior counsel was assisted by either a legal assistant or junior counsel for whom costs were taxed. On the basis of the evidence before me, I must conclude that it was not unreasonable for BCOAPO et al to be represented by two counsel in this construction program review. In view of my conclusion and B.C. Tel's statement that if such a conclusion is reached it would find reasonable the amount claimed for junior counsel, I have taxed 8.2 hours at $85 an hour for preparation and 1.7 days at $550 per day for attendance for a total of $1,632.
|
|
Disbursements
|
|
B.C. Tel did not object to the amounts claimed by BCOAPO et al for disbursements.
|
|
Costs as Taxed
|
|
I hereby tax the fees and disbursements as follows:
|
|
Fees:
|
|
Counsel $6,171.00
|
|
Disbursements:
|
|
Telephone $13.11
|
|
Photocopies 1.80
$14.91
|
|
Total Fees and Disbursements $6,185.91
|
|
John Keogh
Legal Counsel
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
|
|
|