Federation of Canadian Municipalities v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, 2002 FCA 500

• Judge: Létourneau, Nadon, and Pelletier, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: December 17, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2002 FCA 500;(2002), 299 N.R. 165 (FCA)

Federation of Cdn. Municipalities v. CRTC (2002), 299 N.R. 165 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.R. TBEd. JA.024

Federation of Canadian Municipalities (appellant) v. AT&T Canada Corp., AT&T Canada Telecom Services Company, BCT.Telus Communications Inc., Bell Canada, Call-Net Communications Inc., Call-Net Enterprises Inc., Call-Net Technology Services Inc., Canadian Cable Television Association, Futureway Communications Inc., GT Group Telecom Services Corp., Ledcor Industries Ltd., MTS Communications Inc., Telus Communications (B.C.) Inc., Telus Corporation, WFI Urbanlink Ltd., Aliant Telecom Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., and Attorney General of Canada (respondents) and the Attorney General of British Columbia (intervener)

(A-395-01)

City of Calgary (appellant) v. AT&TCanada Corp., AT&T Canada Telecom Services Company, BCT.Telus Communications Inc., Bell Canada, Call-Net Communications Inc., Call-Net Enterprises Inc., Call-Net Technology Services Inc., Canadian Cable Television Association, Futureway Communications Inc., GT Group Telecom Services Corp., Ledcor Industries Ltd., MTS Communications Inc., Telus Communications (B.C.) Inc., Telus Corporation, WFI Urbanlink Ltd., Aliant Telecom Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., and Attorney General of Canada (respondents) and the Attorney General of British Columbia (intervener)

(A-396-01)

Halifax Regional Municipality (appellant) v. AT&T Canada Corp., AT&T Canada Telecom Services Company, BCT.Telus Communications Inc., Bell Canada, Call-Net Communications Inc., Call-Net Enterprises Inc., Call-Net Technology Services Inc., Canadian Cable Television Association, Futureway Communications Inc., GT Group Telecom Services Corp., Ledcor Industries Ltd., MTS Communications Inc., Telus Communications (B.C.) Inc., Telus Corporation, WFI Urbanlink Ltd., Aliant Telecom Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., and Attorney General of Canada (respondents) and the Attorney General of British Columbia (intervener)

(A-397-01)

City of Ottawa and City of Toronto (appellant) v. AT&T Canada Corp., AT&T Canada Telecom Services Company, BCT.Telus Communications Inc., Bell Canada, Call-Net Communications Inc., Call-Net Enterprises Inc., Call-Net Technology Services Inc., Canadian Cable Television Association, Futureway Communications Inc., GT Group Telecom Services Corp., Ledcor Industries Ltd., MTS Communications Inc., Telus Communications (B.C.) Inc., Telus Corporation, WFI Urbanlink Ltd., Aliant Telecom Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., and Attorney General of Canada (respondents) and the Attorney General of British Columbia (intervener)

(A-398-01)

City of Vancouver (appellant) v. AT&T Canada Corp., AT&T Canada Telecom Services Company, BCT.Telus Communications Inc., Bell Canada, Call-Net Communications Inc., Call-Net Enterprises Inc., Call-Net Technology Services Inc., Canadian Cable Television Association, Futureway Communications Inc., GT Group Telecom Services Corp., Ledcor Industries Ltd., MTS Communications Inc., Telus Communications (B.C.) Inc., Telus Corporation, WFI Urbanlink Ltd., Aliant Telecom Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., and Attorney General of Canada (respondents) and the Attorney General of British Columbia (intervener)

(A-399-01; 2002 FCA 500)

Indexed As: Federation of Canadian Municipalities v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission

Federal Court of Appeal

Létourneau, Nadon, and Pelletier, JJ.A.

December 17, 2002.

Summary:

Ledcor Industries Ltd., a telecommunica­tion carrier, sought access to roadways in the City of Vancouver to install fibre optic lines under the roadways. Negotiations between Ledcor and the City of Vancouver failed when the city proposed a number of conditions for granting access which Ledcor found unacceptable. Ledcor applied to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommu­nica­tions Com­mission (CRTC) for an order granting it access to street crossings and other municipal property to install, operate and maintain its fibre optic transmission lines. The City of Vancouver applied for an order setting the terms and conditions for access by Ledcor. The CRTC initiated public proceedings and heard from other interested parties. There­after, the CRTC released its decision grant­ing Ledcor access to the mu­nicipal lands subject to conditions including that it pay $7,616 to the city for the recovery of costs incurred to provide access. The CRTC did not require Ledcor to pay land charges or access fees or fixed common costs to the city. The CRTC declined to deal with the issue of relocation costs at this stage. The CRTC rejected the City's propo­sals regard­ing limitations of liability, leaving these issues to be determined by the common law. The CRTC also found the city's re­quirement that Ledcor execute a general security agree­ment in favour of the city to be too onerous. Appeals were filed by the City of Vancouver and four other cities (i.e., Calgary, Halifax Regional Municipality, Ottawa and Toronto) as well as the Federa­tion of Canadian Muni­cipalities.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Pelletier, J.A., dissenting in part, dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 9058

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Canadian Radio-Tele­vision and Telecommunications Commis­sion - [See Telecommunications -Topic 6473 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1518

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Respecting public utilities - [See Telecommunications - Topic 6473 ].

Telecommunications - Topic 6473

Commissions - Regulation - Powers - Transmission lines (incl. fibre optic lines) -Ledcor, a telecommunication carrier, sought access to roadways in the City of Vancouver to install fibre optic lines - The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecom­muni­cations Commission (CRTC) granted Led­cor access subject to certain conditions, but did not require Ledcor to fully com­pensate the municipality - The CRTC declined to deal with the city's request for more com­pensa­tion and relocation costs, rejected the city's proposals regarding limitations of liability, and refused to order Ledcor to execute a general security agree­ment - The city appealed, arguing that the CRTC either lost or exceeded its jurisdic­tion reaching its decision - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court held that since the decision related to issues that fell squarely within the domain of CRTC's expertise, deference was required - Therefore, the applicable stan­dard of review respecting questions of law was reasonableness and for factual findings was patent unreasonableness - In this case, whether or not the board's find­ings on costs and compensation were findings of law, fact, or mixed law and fact, they were not unreasonable, let alone patently unrea­sonable.

Cases Noticed:

114957 Canada ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town) (2001), 271 N.R. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Mississauga (City) v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority et al. (2000), 138 O.A.C. 1; 50 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Sarson (J.A.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 223; 197 N.R. 125; 91 O.A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321; 25 C.R.(4th) 137; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 14 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 29].

Antwerp Bulkcarriers, N.V., Re (2000), 187 D.L.R.(4th) 106 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. ABC Con­tainerline N.V. (Bankrupt) et al. (1999), 239 N.R. 98; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 493 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

British Columbia Telephone Co. v. Shaw Cable Systems (B.C.) Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 739; 183 N.R. 184, refd to. [para. 30].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Métro­média CMR Montréal Inc., [1999] F.C.J. No. 1637 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Barrie Public Utilities v. Canadian Cable Television Association, [2001] 4 F.C. 237 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Nipissing Central Railway Co., [1926] A.C. 715 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Min­ister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 50].

Upper Lakes Group Inc. et al. v. National Transportation Agency et al., [1995] 3 F.C. 395; 181 N.R. 103 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Service Employees' International Union, Local 333 v. Nipawin District Staff Nurses' Association et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 382; 41 D.L.R.(3d) 6, refd to. [para. 64].

Statutes Noticed:

Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, sect. 42, sect. 43, sect. 44 [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter, Constitutional Law of Canada (1997), c. 16, pp. 16-1 to 16-2 [para. 23].

Counsel:

John Nelligan, Q.C., Christian Tacit and Erin Smith, for the appellant, Federation of Canadian Municipalities;

Patsy J. Scheer, for the appellant, City of Vancouver;

Andrew J. Roman and Michelle Wong, for the appellants, City of Ottawa and City of Toronto;

Mary Ellen Donovan, for the appellant, Halifax Regional Municipality;

Brand R. Inlow, Q.C., for the appellant, City of Calgary;

Jeffrey M. Loenen, for the intervenor, Attorney General of British Columbia;

Thomas G. Heintzman, Q.C., and Susan Gratton, for the respondents, AT&T Canada Corp., AT&T Canada Telecom Services Company, Canadian Cable Television Assoc., Telus Communica­tions Inc., Telus Corporation, Call-Net Communications Inc., Call-Net Enter­prises Inc. and Call-Net Technology Services Inc.;

Brian A. Crane, Q.C., and Ronald D. Lunau, for the respondents, Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, Ledcor Indu­stries Ltd., MTS Communications Inc. and WFI Urbanlink Ltd.;

Neil Finkelstein and Charlotte Kanya-Forstner, for the respondents, GT Group Telecom Services Corp. and Shaw Com­munications Inc.;

Peter M. Southey, for the respondent, Attorney General of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Nelligan, O'Brien Payne LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant, Federation of Canadian Municipalities;

Law Department, City of Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant, City of Vancouver;

Miller Thompson LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, City of Ottawa and City of Toronto;

HRM - Legal Services, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the appellant, Halifax Regional Municipality;

Law Department, City of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, for the appellant, City of Calgary;

Ministry of Attorney General, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervenor, Attorney General of British Columbia;

McCarthy Tétrault LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents, AT&T Canada Corp., AT&T Canada Telecom Services Company, Canadian Cable Television Assoc., Telus Communications Inc., Telus Corporation, Call-Net Communica­tions Inc., Call-Net Enterprises Inc. and Call-Net Technology Services Inc.;

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents, Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Canada, Ledcor In­dustries Ltd., MTS Communications Inc. and WFI Urbanlink Ltd.;

Blake, Cassels & Grayden LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents, GT Group Telecom Services Corp. and Shaw Com­munications Inc.;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Attorney General of Canada.

This appeal was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 29 and 30, 2002, before Létourn­eau, Nadon and Pelletier, JJ.A., of the Feder­al Court of Appeal. The judgment of the court was delivered on December 17, 2002, when the following opinions were filed:

Létourneau, J.A. (Nadon, J.A., con­curring) - see paragraphs 1 to 36;

Pelletier, J.A., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 37 to 64.