Question

求这篇文章的中文翻译

Consumers' groups have not been entirely invisible. The main focus of public interest litigation has been before a broad range of administrative boards, commissions, and tribunals which are active both federally and provincially. Despite some deregulation in recent years, the history of consumer advocacy in Canada has been a history of intervention in public utility rate hearings and appearances before other non-judicial tribunals. There are two principal reasons for this.
First, such tribunals do not use the two-way costs rule, therefore, the consumer group is unlikely to be saddled with an enormous bill for the other side's costs. Second, several of the major tribunals[3] require the utility or other proponent to pay the intervenor group's costs for lawyers and expert witness fees as long as they were reasonably incurred. The rationale for this is that if the customers of the utility have to pay the utility's lawyers to argue that the rates should be increased, it is in the interest of these same customers to pay consumer advocates to present the opposite side of the ease.
It is not very difficult for a consumer advocate to have his fees paid by the utility. For example, in a recent case at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, an attorney, on behalf of his client, the National Anti-Poverty Organization, asked the CRTC to order Bell Canada to repay the proceeds of an excessive interim rate increase. The company was ordered to repay $250 million to consumers in the form of a credit for approximately two months of free telephone service.[4] The regulator also ordered Bell Canada to pay roughly $200,000 in costs for the testimony of two expert witnesses and the lawyer's legal services. While not every consumer case is that successful, it is unlikely in Canada that a result involving that large a benefit for consumers could have been obtained in the courts, especially at zero cost to the client and zero risk that the client would be ordered to pay Bell Canada's costs.
In Ontario, the provincial government was concerned that intervenors' costs in public interest cases could only be awarded after the judgment. Public interest groups often cannot afford to finance the case pending the final costs award, nor can they take the risk that such an award might not be made.[5] As a result, Ontario enacted the Intervenor Funding Project Act,[6] which permits certain tribunals to award funding to intervenors in advance of the heating, on a modest scale, with the potential that this will be supplemented by a full costs award at the end. The other provinces are carefully watching this legislation.
这是篇关于法律的文章，求它的中文翻译，谢谢了啊

Answer 1

消费者团体尚未完全无形。主要集中在公共利益诉讼之前，已经广泛的行政委员会，佣金，及审裁处，其中活跃的两个联邦和省。尽管取得了一些放松管制，近年来，历史上的消费者权益保护在加拿大一直是历史上的干预，在公共事业的听证会率和出庭之前，其他非司法法庭。有两个主要的原因。
首先，这样的法庭不使用双程费用规则，因此，消费金融集团是不太可能陷入一个巨大的条例草案，对方的成本。第二，几个主要的法庭[ 3 ] ，要求公用事业或其他倡议者支付intervenor组的成本为律师和专家证人的费用，只要他们合理地引致的。这个道理，如果顾客的效用要付出公用事业的律师认为，利率应增加，这是在的利益，这些相同的客户支付的消费主张，以目前的对立面，易用性。
它并不是很困难，为消费者主张有其支付的费用由该实用程序。例如，在最近的一个案例，在符合公众利益的宣传中心，律师，代表他的客户，国家反贫穷组织，要求crtc令加拿大贝尔偿还的收益过多的临时加息。该公司被勒令偿还2.5亿美元，以在消费者中形成了一个信用大约两个月的免费电话服务。 [ 4 ]的监管还下令加拿大贝尔支付大约二十○点○○万美元在成本的证词，两名专家证人和律师的法律服务。虽然不是每个消费者的情况是，成功的，这是不太可能在加拿大的一个结果，涉及大量的福利，消费者可以得到了在法庭上，尤其是在零成本向客户端和零风险，即客户端将被饬令支付加拿大贝尔的成本。
在安大略省，省政府关注intervenors的成本，在符合公众利益的案件，只能批出后的判断。公共利益团体，往往不能负担资金待决的案件最终成本奖，也不能承担风险，这样的奖未必。 [ 5 ]因此，安大略省制定了intervenor资金项目的行为， [ 6 ] ，其中许可证的某些审裁处，以奖励资金，以intervenors在预先加热，对规模不大，与潜在的，这将是辅之以全部成本的奖在去年底。其他各省都仔细看这条法例。