ARCHIVED - Letter
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
Ottawa, 19 June 2012
Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Re: Application for costs by PIAC/CAC for their participation in the proceeding initiated by PIAC pursuant to Part 1 of the Rules of Procedure regarding certain billing practices of wireless service providers, File 8661-P8-201116807 – Our file 4754-399
Dear Mr. Lawford:
In their application for costs in the above noted proceeding, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and the Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) have claimed 62.05 hours for legal services provided by the claimant Jean François Léger, senior counsel with 25 years of completed practice, at a rate of $290 per hour. The time sheet attached to Form 1 – Summary of Legal Fees for this claimant includes a number of hours where the work performed is described as research, research and drafting, or follow-up research. The hours claimed for follow-up research are listed at a ½ rate. PIAC/CAC have also claimed 1.7 days for legal services provided by the claimant Roxanne Gunning, an articling student employed by PIAC. The time sheet attached to Form 1 – Summary of Legal fees for this claimant describes the work performed as research regarding FCC number portability and Quebec consumer protection law.
Commission staff notes that paragraph 23 of the Guidelines for the Assessment of Costs states that:
Applicants are encouraged to rely on junior counsel and articling students to the greatest extent possible. When senior counsel are relied on, applicants may be asked to demonstrate with supporting rationale why this reliance was necessary.
In light of the above, PIAC/CAC are requested to provide a response to the following questions by 22 June 2012:
1. Provide a description of the research undertaken by the claimant Mr. Léger and rationale for why it was necessary that senior counsel undertake this research rather than an articling student or junior counsel.
2. Where time has been recorded in the time sheet attached to Form 1 – Summary of Legal Fees for Mr. Léger as including both research and drafting, provide a breakdown of the amount of time spent on research versus the amount of time spent on drafting.
Please file this information via Access Key, and send a copy to Lisa McCreary at email@example.com.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY /
- Date modified: