Center for Public Interest Law v. Canadian Transport Commission (No. 2), (1974) 2 N.R. 336 (FCA)

JudgeUrie, Addy and Decary, JJ.
CourtFederal Court of Appeal (Canada)
Case DateFebruary 22, 1974
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1974), 2 N.R. 336 (FCA)

Public Interest Law v. Cdn. Transport (1974), 2 N.R. 336 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Center for Public Interest Law v. Canadian Transport Commission (No. 2)

Indexed As: Center for Public Interest Law v. Canadian Transport Commission (No. 2)

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 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 dismissed an application for leave to appeal pursuant to s. 64(2) of the National Transportation Act - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the dismissal by the Canadian Transport Commission of the motion was not a "decision" within the meaning of s. 64(2) of the National Transportation Act.

Words and Phrases

Decision - The Federal Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "decision" as found in s. 64(2) of the National Transportation Act, R.S.C. 1970, N-17.

Section 64(2) of the National Transportation Act states:

"(2) An appeal lies from the Commission to the Federal Court of Appeal upon a question of law, or a question of jurisdiction, upon leave therefor being obtained from that Court upon application made within one month after the making of the order, decision, rule or regulation sought to be appealed from or within such further time as a judge of that Court under special circumstances allows, and upon notice to the parties and the Commission, and upon hearing such of them as appear and desire to be heard; and the costs of such application are in the discretion of that Court."

Statutes Noticed:

Transportation Act, R.S.C. 1970, N-17, sect. 64(2).

Counsel:

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

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

Guy Houle, for mise-en-cause.

This case was heard at Montreal on February 22, 1974. Judgment was delivered on February 22, 1974 and the following reasons for judgment were filed:

ADDY, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 4;

DECARY, J. - see paragraph 5.

URIE, J., concurred with ADDY, J.

To continue reading

Request your trial