Public Interest Law v. Cdn. Transport, (1974) 2 N.R. 332 (FCA)

JudgeUrie, Addy and Decary, JJ.
CourtFederal Court of Appeal (Canada)
Case DateFebruary 22, 1974
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1974), 2 N.R. 332 (FCA)

Public Interest Law v. Cdn. Transport (1974), 2 N.R. 332 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Center for Public Interest Law v. Canadian Transport Commission (No. 1)

Indexed As: Center for Public Interest Law v. Canadian Transport Commission (No. 1)

Federal Court of Appeal

Urie, Addy and Decary, JJ.

February 22, 1974.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Courts - Topic 4085

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Appeal respecting the decisions of boards and tribunals - At the commencement of a hearing before the Canadian Transport Commission, the Centre for Public Interest Law made a motion that an application for rate increases by Bell Canada was not a new application but was an appeal of a previous application - The Canadian Transport Commission dismissed the motion and the Centre for Public Interest Law appealed the dismissal of the motion to the Federal Court of Appeal - The Federal Court of Appeal granted an application by Bell Canada to quash the appeal - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the dismissal of the motion by the Canadian Transport Commission was not a "decision" within the meaning of s. 28(1) of the Federal Court Act and accordingly was not reviewable by the Federal Court of Appeal under that section.

Words and Phrases

Decision - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "decision" as found in s. 28 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. 10 (2nd supp.).

Section 28(1) of the Federal Court Act reads as follows:

"28(1) Notwithstanding section 18 or the provisions of any other Act, the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application to review and set aside a decision or order, other than a decision or order of an administrative nature not required by law to be made on a judicial or quasi-judicial basis, made by or in the course of proceedings before a federal board, commission or other tribunal, upon the ground that the board, commission or tribunal

(a) failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;

(b) erred in law in making its decision or order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; or

(c) based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a preverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it."

Cases Noticed:

Danmour Shoes Co. Ltd. (1974), 1 N.R. 422, folld. [paras. 2, 3].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. 10 (2nd supp.), sect. 28(1).

Counsel:

Ronald I. Cohen and Pamela Sigurdson, for the petitioner;

W.G. St. John, for the respondent;

Guy Houle, for the mise-en-cause.

This appeal was heard on February 22, 1974. Judgment was delivered on February 22, 1974 and the following opinions were filed:

URIE, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 4;

DECARY, J. - see paragraph 5.

ADDY, J., concurred with URIE, J.

To continue reading

Request your trial