Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act, (1987) 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 19, 1987
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1987), 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 (SCC);209 APR 1;85 NBR (2d) 183;68 Nfld & PEIR 1;80 NR 321;29 Admin LR 22;20 CPR (3d) 19;1987 CanLII 34 (SCC);45 DLR (4th) 570;[1987] 2 SCR 466

Nfld. v. Combines Inv. (1987), 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 (SCC);

    209 A.P.R. 1

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Director of Investigation and Research Under the Combines Act v. Newfoundland Telephone Company Limited and Newfoundland Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities

(18880)

Indexed As: Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act

Supreme Court of Canada

Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ.

November 19, 1987.

Summary:

The Newfoundland Telephone Company applied to the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities for an order allowing it to add a paging service to its operations. The Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act filed a notice of intervention, seeking to intervene to assist the Board in its determination. The telephone company objected, submitting that the Director lacked status to intervene. The Board dismissed to objection and allowed the Director to intervene. The telephone company appealed.

The Newfoundland Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 47 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 277; 139 A.P.R. 277, allowed the appeal, because the Director had neither the status to intervene nor a specific interest in the subject matter of the application. The Director appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court held that the Director was not authorized under the Combines Investigation Act to intervene in proceedings before a provincial public utilities board and the Board could not permit the intervention.

Administrative Law - Topic 507

Hearing and decision - Procedure - Parties - Intervenors - Public officials as intervenors - Status or capacity - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a public official (such as the Director, Combines Investigation) needs statutory authority to intervene in his official capacity in proceedings before an administrative tribunal - See paragraphs 11 to 13 - If the official has no statutory authority to intervene, the tribunal may not permit intervention - See paragraphs 14 to 18.

Statutes - Topic 4806

Operation and effect - Enabling acts - General principles - Powers included in enabling act by implication - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, where an administrative tribunal is given power to make all necessary examinations and inquiries and to conduct hearings, the discretionary authority to permit intervention exists by implication as necessary to the effective exercise of its powers - See paragraph 16.

Trade Regulation - Topic 226

Regulatory bodies - Director, Combines Investigation - Status to intervene - The Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, s. 27.1 (since replaced by the broader and more complete ss. 97, 98 of the Competition Act, S.C. 1986, c. 26), authorized the Director to intervene before a federal tribunal - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 27.1 did not authorize the Director to intervene in proceedings before a provincial public utilities board and that the Board could not permit the intervention.

Cases Noticed:

Hunter and Board of Public Utilities of New Brunswick, Re (1984), 53 N.B.R.(2d) 343; 138 A.P.R. 343; 8 D.L.R.(4th) 454, refd to. [para. 5].

Maritime Telegraph & Telephone Co. and Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities, Re (1981), 47 N.S.R.(2d) 90; 90 A.P.R. 90; 125 D.L.R.(3d) 252, folld. [para. 5].

Interprovincial Pipe Line Ltd. v. National Energy Board, [1978] 1 F.C. 601; 17 N.R. 56, refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23, sect. 27.1 [para. 8].

Competition Act, S.C. 1986, c. 26, sect. 97, sect. 98 [para. 9].

Public Utilities Act, R.S.N. 1970, c. 322, sect. 14, sect. 23(g), sect. 40, sect. 60, sect. 73, sect. 81, sect. 113(2) [para. 14].

Public Utilities Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. P-27, sect. 5(1), sect. 22, sect. 23, sect. 24 [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Côté, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (1984), pp. 262-266 [para. 19].

Counsel:

W.J. Miller and Bruce Russell, for the appellant;

E.J. Kipnis, for the respondent, Newfoundland Telephone Co.;

Ian F. Kelly, for the respondent, Newfoundland Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities;

M. Robert Jette, for the New Brunswick Telephone Co.

Solicitors of Record:

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Chalker, Green & Rowe, St. John's, Newfoundland, for the respondent (applicant), the Newfoundland Telephone Co.;

Curtis, Dawe, Russell, Bonnell, Winsor & Stokes, St. John's, Newfoundland, for the respondent, Newfoundland Board of Commissioner of Public Utilities.

This case was heard on May 29, 1986, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On November 19, 1987, Le Dain, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada, in both official languages.