British Columbia Telephone Co. v. Shaw Cable Systems (B.C.) Ltd., (1995) 183 N.R. 184 (SCC)

• Judge: Iacobucci and Major, JJ.A.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 22, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 183 N.R. 184 (SCC);[1995] SCJ No 54 (QL);[1995] ACS no 54;183 NR 184;125 DLR (4th) 443;[1995] 2 SCR 739;1995 CanLII 101 (SCC);31 Admin LR (2d) 169

B.C. Tel. v. Shaw Cable Systems Ltd. (1995), 183 N.R. 184 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Shaw Cable Systems (B.C.) Ltd. and Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (appellants) v. British Columbia Telephone Company and Telecommunications Workers Union (respondents)

(23717)

Indexed As: British Columbia Telephone Co. v. Shaw Cable Systems (B.C.) Ltd.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé,

Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,

Iacobucci and Major, JJ.A.

June 22, 1995.

Summary:

The Canadian Radio-Television and Tele-communications Commission (CRTC) directed BC Tel to permit Shaw Cable Sys­tems (B.C.) Ltd. to install its own cable on BC Tel support structures. An arbitration board had determined that compliance with the CRTC decision would violate BC Tel's collective agreement with the Telecommuni­cations Workers Union (TWU). BC Tel appealed the CRTC decision, arguing that the CRTC erred in law or exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to defer to the arbitra­tion board's decision and alternatively, by ordering BC Tel to violate the collective agreement.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 155 N.R. 161, set aside the CRTC's direction to BC Tel and remitted the matter to the CRTC for reconsideration and decision on the basis that it did not have the jurisdiction to order BC Tel to violate the terms of its collective agreement with TWU. Shaw Cable and the CRTC appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the CRTC.

Administrative Law - Topic 9058

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 9120 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9120

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Conflicting decisions of separate boards or tribunals - The Canadian Radio-Televi­sion and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) directed BC Tel to permit Shaw Cable to install its own cable on BC Tel support structures - An arbitration board had determined that compliance with the CRTC's direction would violate BC Tel's collective agreement with the Telecom­munications Workers Union (TWU), which required certain work to be performed by TWU members - The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the CRTC's decision, holding that the CRTC exceeded its juris­diction by requiring BC Tel to violate the collective agreement - The Supreme Court of Canada restored the decision of the CRTC - The CRTC decision took prece­dence over that of the arbitration board to the extent of the operational conflict.

Administrative Law - Topic 9120

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Conflicting decisions of separate boards or tribunals - The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the approach to be taken by the courts in situations where administrative tribunals render operationally conflicting decisions, i.e., where compliance with the decision of one tribunal necessitates vio­lation of another tribunal's decision - The court discussed, inter alia, the factors to be considered in determining which of the two conflicting decisions should take precedence - See paragraphs 47 to 59.

Telecommunications - Topic 6461

Commissions - Regulation - Powers - General - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 9120 ].

Cases Noticed:

Syndicat national des employés de la com­mission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, Local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 18].

Transvision (Magog) Inc. v. Bell Canada, [1975] C.T.C. 463, refd to. [para. 19].

Domtar Inc. v. Commission d'appel en matière de lésions professionnelles et autres, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 756; 154 N.R. 104; 55 Q.A.C. 241, consd. [para. 24].

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 29].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722; 97 N.R. 15, consd. [para. 30].

Hodge v. R. (1883), 9 App. Cas. 117 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Alberta Power Ltd. et al. v. Public Utilities Board (Alta.) et al. (1990), 102 A.R. 353; 72 Alta. L.R.(2d) 129 (C.A.), consd. [para. 52].

Telecommunications Workers Union v. Canadian Radio-Television and Tele­communications Commission et al. (1995), 183 N.R. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 66].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Labour Code - see Labour Code.

Canadian Radio-television and Telecom­munications Commission Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-22, generally [para. 33].

Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases, Act respecting, R.S.Q. 1977, c. A-3.001, sect. 60 [para. 46].

Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, sect. 58 [para. 20].

National Telecommunications Powers and Procedures Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-20, sect. 49 [para. 11]; sect. 49(2), sect. 50 [para. 12]; sect. 68(1) [para. 19].

Railway Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. R-2, sect. 317 [para. 41]; sect. 326(3) [para. 42].

Railway Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-3, sect. 335 [para. 36]; sect. 339(1) [para. 19]; sect. 340 [para. 36].

Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, sect. 43(5) [para. 43].

Counsel:

Thomas G. Heintzman, Q.C. and Susan L. Gratton, for the appellant, Shaw Cable Systems (B.C.) Ltd.;

Avrum Cohen, Allan Rosenzveig and Carolyn Pinsky, for the appellant, CRTC;

Jack Giles, Q.C., Judy Jansen and Alison Narod, for the respondent, B.C. Tele­phone Co.;

Morley D. Shortt, Q.C. and Donald Bobert, for the respondent, Telecommunications Workers Union.

Solicitors of Record:

McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant Shaw Cable Systems (B.C.) Ltd.;

CRTC Legal Directorate, Hull, Quebec, for the appellant CRTC;

Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent British Columbia Telephone Co.;

Shortt, Moore & Arsenault, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent Telecommunications Workers Union.

This appeal was heard on January 23, 1995, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official lan­guages on June 22, 1995, including the following opinions:

Lamer, C.J.C. (La Forest, J., concurring) - see paragraph 1;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (Gonthier and Major, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 2 to 65;

Sopinka, J. - see paragraph 66;

Cory, J. - see paragraphs 67 to 77;

McLachlin, J. - see paragraphs 78 to 81;

Iacobucci, J. - see paragraph 82.