Historical Cost of Proceedings Before the Tribunal (2)

TAB A
RTPC
(DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION & RESEARCH)
v. BBM BUREAU OF MEASUREMENT

A.1 Background Summary

A complaint was filed with the Bureau against BBM in April 1977. The inquiry into the activities of BBM began in 1977 and an Application pursuant to Section 31.4(2)(a)(b) of the Combines Investigation Act was filed by the Director on October 30, 1981. In June 1977, searches took place at BBM's head office in Toronto. Most of the witnesses in this Case were from Toronto.

The accused supplied radio and television viewing data. Its customers mainly comprised advertising agencies and television and radio station representatives. BBM was accused of inducing advertising agencies to acquire television viewing data from them by offering to supply the radio data on more favourable terms (a discount), if the said agencies agreed to acquire its television data. It was alleged that this constituted a tied sale of these products, as defined under subsection 31.4(1)(11) of the Combines Investigation Act.

BBM was prohibited by Order of the RTPC on December 18, 1981 from continuing to engage in tied selling of both radio and television audience measurement services. The respondent filed an application, pursuant to Section 28 of the Federal Court of Appeal, to review the Order on the grounds that this section was ultra vires. The Federal Court of Appeal rendered its judgment on March 6, 1984, dismissing the application.

BBM was the first tied-selling case undertaken by the Bureau. Because of the length of time which has elapsed since the Case was conducted, only limited recorded historical data were available.

A.2 Historical Cost Summary

The estimated historical costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting BBM are summarized as follows:

A.3 Salaries and Wages of Bureau Staff

The total number of hours worked on the Case was preserved in summarized form in the time-reporting system; however, these hours were not segregated either by year or by category of employee.

Because of the lack of information, the Officer provided estimates of the hours worked by fiscal year, and an allocation of the annual hours by category of employee.

A.4 Salaries and Wages of Justice Department Staff

No historical information was available as to the amount of time lawyers from the Justice Department worked on the Case, nor were lawyers currently in the Department able to provide time estimates. Consequently, a Manager from the Bureau provided such an estimate. In addition, the Manager noted that the BBM Case was of comparable complexity to Chrysler.

A.5 Experts

No historical financial-reporting data were available with respect to the cost of outside experts retained by the Bureau to assist in the Case. The Officer who conducted the Case informed us that one expert (an economist) provided services prior to, and during, the Hearing. A copy of the proposed contract between the Bureau and the economist was located in the Case Files. However, based upon the Officer's recollection of the extent of services provided, the amount stipulated in the contract appeared to be grossly understated and had most likely been modified as the Case progressed. The Officer, accordingly, provided an estimate of the amount that was ultimately paid to the economist.

A.6 External Legal Counsel

External counsel was not retained to assist in litigating the Case.

A.7 Travel

Travel costs were based on the Officer's estimate of the number of days spent searching the respondents' premises, conducting interviews and attending various hearings. The travel costs of witnesses were also estimated, based on an approximation of the number of witnesses involved in the Case and the assumption that the costs would include one airplane flight³⁰ and one day's expenses³¹, per witness. The number of days spent searching the respondents' premises was corroborated by a memorandum located in the Case Files, which described the search.

A.8 Other

No financial-reporting data were available with respect to any other costs. Document reproduction costs were estimated and included in "Other" costs as described in Section 3.2.6.

A.9 Overhead

Overhead costs were estimated as described in Section 3.2.7.

Table of Contents

SCHEDULE A-1

RTPC (DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH) v. BBM BUREAU OF MEASUREMENT
SALARIES AND WAGES OF BUREAU STAFF
Title	Category	Estimated Hours Conducting the Case								Total Hours	Salaries & Wages
		1977	1978	1979	1980	1981	1982	1983	1984
Manager	1	17	13	13	26	2	2	-	2	75	$  2,515
Officer	2	680	529	529	1,047	76	75	10	75	3,021	61,862
		697	542	542	1,073	78	77	10	77	3,096	$64,377

NOTE: This schedule forms part of, and should be read in conjunction with, the accompanying report.

SCHEDULE A-2

RTPC (DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH) v. BBM BUREAU OF MEASUREMENT
SALARIES AND WAGES OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT STAFF
Title	Category	Estimated Hours Conducting the Case								Total Hours	Salaries & Wages
		1977	1978	1979	1980	1981	1982	1983	1984
Counsel	2A	87	67	67	133	10	10	1	10	385	$  8,524
Junior Counsel	1	87	67	67	133	10	10	1	10	385	5,543
		174	134	134	266	20	20	2	20	770	$14,067

NOTE: This schedule forms part of, and should be read in conjunction with, the accompanying report.

SCHEDULE A-3

NOTE: This schedule forms part of, and should be read in conjunction with, the accompanying report.

Table of Contents

---

TAB B
CANADA (DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION & RESEARCH) v. CHRYSLER CANADA LTD.

B.1 Background Summary

In December 1988 the Director brought an Application on behalf of a customer which Chrysler Canada had terminated for refusing to comply with contractual restrictions on the sale of auto parts in export markets. In October 1989 the Tribunal ordered that Chrysler resume supply on normal trade terms. Chrysler's appeal against the Order failed. After lengthy interlocutory proceedings concerning the scope of the Tribunal's contempt powers, a motion by the Director that Chrysler show cause why it should not be found in contempt was dismissed by the Tribunal in September 1992. The Order was rescinded on consent in December 1993 after Chrysler and the customer reached an agreement which resolved their outstanding differences.

B.2 Historical Cost Summary

The estimated historical costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting the Case are summarized as follows:

B.3 Salaries and Wages of Bureau Staff

The Officer allocated the total number of hours recorded in the Bureau's time-reporting system to the categories of employees who performed the work. A description of how the cost relating to the salaries and wages of Bureau staff was developed is set out in Section 3.2.1.

B.4 Salaries and Wages of Justice Department Staff

The senior Justice Department lawyer provided an estimate of the number of hours he worked on the Case, broken down into three above-noted phases.

The hours were then classified by fiscal year, based on the approximate dates spanning each of the three phases (to assist in determining the appropriate hourly salary). The time estimated, as provided by the junior lawyer, was not segregated by year or by activity; consequently, his hours were allocated among the fiscal years during which the Case was conducted, based on the assumption that the number of hours he worked in a given fiscal year was proportionate to the work performed in that year by the senior lawyer.

B.5 Experts

The historical costs relating to outside experts retained by the Bureau were extracted from the DSS Reports, net of estimated external legal counsel fees (see Section B.6).

B.6 External Legal Counsel

One lawyer was retained to provide legal services to the Bureau in connection with this Case. The Officer provided an estimate of the legal fees incurred, because the DSS Reports contained only summarized cost data and invoices were not available.

Based on the Officer's estimate, the approximate cost of external legal counsel was transferred from the "Professional Services"³² category in the DSS Reports to "External Legal Counsel" costs.

B.7 Travel

Travel costs were extracted from the DSS Reports.

B.8 Other

No financial-reporting data were available with respect to any other costs. Document reproduction costs were estimated and included in "Other" costs, as described in Section 3.2.6.

B.9 Overhead

Overhead costs were estimated as described in Section 3.2.7.

Table of Contents

SCHEDULE B-1

CANADA (DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH) v. CHRYSLER CANADA LTD.
SALARIES AND WAGES OF BUREAU STAFF
Title	Category	Estimated Hours Conducting the Case								Total Hours	Salaries & Wages
		1987/88	1988/89	1989/90	1990/91	1991/92	1992/93	1993/94
Manager	1	-	141	246>	23	2	7	6		425	$   18,238
Officer	3	438	377	821	230	43	131	129		2,169	79,167
Officer	2	-	377	492	-	-	-	-		869	27,518
Programme Administrator	1	-	189	328	-	-	-	-		517	9,218
		438	1,084	1,887	253	45	138	135		3,980	$134,141

NOTE: This schedule forms part of, and should be read in conjunction with, the accompanying report.

SCHEDULE B-2

NOTE: This schedule forms part of, and should be read in conjunction with, the accompanying report.

SCHEDULE B-3

NOTE: This schedule forms part of, and should be read in conjunction with, the accompanying report.

Table of Contents | Tabs C & D