Bell Canada v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, (1987) 79 N.R. 58 (FCA)

• Judge: Pratte, Marceau and Hugessen, JJ.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: July 10, 1987
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1987), 79 N.R. 58 (FCA)

Bell Can. v. CRTC (1987), 79 N.R. 58 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Bell Canada v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission

(A-737-86)

Indexed As: Bell Canada v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission

Federal Court of Appeal

Pratte, Marceau and Hugessen, JJ.

July 10, 1987.

Summary:

Bell Canada appealed from an order of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission requiring it to give its subscribers of record a one-time credit of 206 million dollars.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Hugessen, J., dissenting, allowed the appeal.

Public Utilities - Topic 4673

Public utilities commissions - Regulation - Rates - Rebates - After deciding that Bell Canada had made excess revenue in 1985 and 1986 the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission ordered Bell to give its subscribers of record a one-time credit of 206 million dollars - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Commission had no jurisdiction to make the order under its rate and tariff regulation power in the National Transportation Act and the Railway Act.

Cases Noticed:

Calgary and Home Oil Co. v. Madison Natural Gas Co. (1959), 19 D.L.R.(2d) 655, appld. [para. 18].

Bakery and Confectionary Workers International Union of America, Local 468 v. White Lunch Ltd., [1966] S.C.R. 282; 56 D.L.R.(2d) 193, dist. [paras. 21, 37].

Coseka Resources Ltd. v. Saratoga Processing Co. (1981), 31 A.R. 541; 126 D.L.R.(3d) 705, dist. [paras. 21, 27, 36, 43].

R. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (N.B.) (1967), 60 D.L.R.(2d) 703, appld. [para. 23].

Algar v. Middlesex County Council, [1945] 2 All E.R. 243, refd to. [para. 24].

Re Eurocan Pulp & Paper Co. Ltd. and British Columbia Energy Commission (1978), 87 D.L.R.(3d) 727, dist. [paras. 26, 40].

Nova v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Ltd. et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 437; 38 N.R. 381; 32 A.R. 613, dist. [paras. 26, 40].

Young v. Adams, [1898] A.C. 469, appld. [para. 28].

Edmonton et al. v. Northwestern Utilities Limited, [1961] S.C.R. 392, consd. [para. 50].

Statutes Noticed:

Bell Telephone Company of Canada Incorporation Act, S.C. 1880, c. 67, sect. 46 [para. 16].

National Transportation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-17, sect. 45(2), sect. 46(1), sect. 48 [para. 4]; sect. 57 [paras. 4, 21, 34, 41]; sect. 57(2) [para. 34]; sect. 58, sect. 63, sect. 64(1) [para. 4].

Railway Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. R-2, sect. 320(2), sect. 320(3), sect. 320(6), sect. 321(1) [para. 3]; sect. 321(2) [paras. 3, 29]; sect. 321(4) [paras. 3, 19]; sect. 321(5) [paras. 3, 16, 51].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Côté, P.A., Interpretation of Legislation in Canada, p. 125 [para. 28].

Romaniuk, B., and Janisch, H., Competition in Telecommunications (1986), 18 Ottawa L. Rev. 561 [para. 17].

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Ed.) [para. 24].

Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (5th Ed.) [para. 24].

Counsel:

Louise Martin and Gérald R. Tremblay, for Bell Canada;

Janet Yale, for Consumers Association of Canada;

Raynold Langlois, Greg Van Koughnett and Lisa De Wilde, for Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission;

Michael Ryan, for C.N.C.P. Telecommunications;

Graham and R. Garton, for Attorney General of Canada;

Michel Robert, Andrew Roman and Pierre-Paul Lavoie, for National Anti-Poverty Organization;

Ken Engelhart, for Canadian Business Telecommunications Alliance.

Solicitors of Record:

Clarkson, Tétrault, Montreal, Quebec, for Bell Canada;

Janet Yale, General Counsel, Consumers' Association of Canada, for Consumers Association of Canada;

Raynold Langlois, Greg Van Koughnett and Lisa De Wilde, Counsel, C.R.T.C., Ottawa, Ontario, for Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission;

Michael H. Ryan, Counsel, Canadian Pacific Law Department, for C.N.C.P. Telecommunications;

F. Iacobucci, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for Attorney General of Canada;

Michel Robert, Andrew Roman and Pierre-Paul Lavoie, Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, for National Anti-Poverty Organization;

Kenneth G. Engelhart, General Counsel, Toronto, Ontario, for Canadian Business Telecommunications Alliance.

This case was heard on May 21-22, 1987, at Montreal, Quebec, before Pratte, Marceau and Hugessen, JJ., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On July 10, 1987, the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Marceau, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 32;

Pratte, J. - see paragraphs 33 to 37;

Hugessen, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 38 to 52.