Regina Cablevision Co-operative et al. v. Saskatchewan et al., (1991) 92 Sask.R. 309 (QB)

• Judge: Barclay, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 27, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1991), 92 Sask.R. 309 (QB)

Regina Cablevision Co-op v. Sask. (1991), 92 Sask.R. 309 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Regina Cablevision Co-operative, Saskatoon Telecable Ltd., North Eastern Cablevision Ltd., Prairie Co-ax TV Ltd., Cablenet Limited and Swift Current Cablevision Ltd. (plaintiffs/respondents) v. The Government of Saskatchewan and Saskatchewan Communications Network Corporation (defendants/applicants)

(No. 3726 A.D. 1990)

Indexed As: Regina Cablevision Co-operative et al. v. Saskatchewan et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Barclay, J.

March 27, 1991.

Summary:

The province enacted the Communications Network Corporation Act, which established the Saskatchewan Communications Network Corp. The Act also provided for a Distance Education Development Fee, payable by all cable subscribers. Several cable companies brought an application for a declaration that the Act or portions thereof were unconstitu­tional. The province applied under Queen's Bench Rule 188 for pretrial determination of a point of law, namely, whether the Act or the offending portions were ultra vires.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 5268

Trials - Trial of preliminary issues - Bars - The Communications Network Corpor­ation Act established the Saskatchewan Communications Network Corp. and pro­vided for a Distance Education Develop­ment Fee, payable by all cable subscribers - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench refused to determine, under rule 188, whether the Act or its relevant por­tions were ultra vires, where there was no agreed statement of facts, the issues of fact and law were complex and intermingled and the Act could not be fully understood without oral testimony at trial.

Cases Noticed:

Shields (Resort Village) v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, [1989] 2 W.W.R. 163; 69 Sask.R. 131 (C.A.), appld. [para. 11].

Stagman v. Hamm, [1984] 5 W.W.R. 148; 34 Sask.R. 265, refd to. [para. 11].

Mann v. Regina (City) (1989), 81 Sask.R. 256 (C.A.), consd. [para. 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Communicaations Network Corporation Act, S.S. 1990, c. C-16.01, sect. 15 [para. 3].

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 188 [paras. 1, 9-10, 16, 18-19]; rule 189 [para. 9].

Counsel:

Dr. J. Beke, Q.C., for the plain­tiffs/respondents;

Graeme G. Mitchell, for the Government of Saskatchewan;

A. McIntyre, for Saskatchewan Communi­cations Network Corp.

This application was heard before Barclay, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Regina, whose decision was delivered on March 27, 1991.