Telus Communications Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2014) 445 F.T.R. 165 (FC)

• Judge: Strickland, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 03, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 445 F.T.R. 165 (FC);2014 FC 1

Telus Com. Co. v. Can. (A.G.) (2014), 445 F.T.R. 165 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. JA.001

Telus Communications Company (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-1405-13; 2014 FC 1; 2014 CF 1)

Indexed As: Telus Communications Co. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Strickland, J.

January 2, 2014.

Summary:

Industry Canada (Minister) decided to auction off spectrum in the 700 MHz band for commercial mobile systems. After consultation with interested parties, the Minister set terms of the auction and conditions on the licences (in the "Policy and Technical Framework" and the "Licencing Framework" decisions). Telus Communications Co. was affected by the decisions because of the spectrum cap on large wireless service providers. Telus applied for judicial review of the authority of the Minister respecting the issuance of spectrum licences, seeking declaratory relief and an order of prohibition. Telus argued that the conditions imposed by the Minister's decisions were in fact eligibility criteria, a matter within the regulation making authority of the Governor-in-Council.

The Federal Court dismissed the application. The Minister had the authority to impose conditions on spectrum licences for the 700 MHz band, including spectrum caps applicable to large wireless service providers such as Telus.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - [See first Telecommunications - Topic 1166 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3342

Judicial review - General - Practice - Limitation period - [See Courts - Topic 4071.3 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3348

Judicial review - General - Practice - Time for application - [See Courts - Topic 4071.3 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 7052

Judicial review - Bars - Statutory - Limitation period - [See Courts - Topic 4071.3 ].

Courts - Topic 4071.3

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Judicial review applications - Time for - Industry Canada issued two decisions respecting an auction for spectrum in the 700 MHz band, setting conditions on the auction and the licences - Seventeen months later, Telus Communications, a wireless service provider, applied for judicial review - Industry Canada argued that Telus was challenging a discrete Ministerial policy decision to which the 30 day time limit applied (Federal Courts Act, s. 18.1(2)) - The Federal Court held that the decisions formed part of an ongoing policy - The validity of a policy, as opposed to its application, could be challenged at any time - The issue here fell within the definition of "matter" within s. 18.1(1) of the Federal Courts Act; therefore, the 30 day limit did not apply - See paragraphs 24 to 43.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7601

Actions against the Crown - In the Federal Court of Canada - [See Courts - Topic 4071.3 ].

Telecommunications - Topic 1107

Wireless telecommunications services - Licensing - Terms conditions (incl. authority to impose) - Industry Canada (Minister) issued two decisions respecting an auction for spectrum in the 700 MHz band, setting conditions on the auction and the licences - At issue was whether the Minister in fixing the conditions on spectrum licences acted outside his authority in making a determination on eligibility, a matter within the regulation making authority of the Governor-in-Council - The Federal Court held that the Minister had the authority to impose conditions on spectrum licences, including spectrum caps applicable to large wireless service providers - Having regard to the Minister's authority in light of the policy objectives of the applicable statutory scheme, and applying a textual, contextual and purposive analysis, the subject conditions did not comprise eligibility requirements but served to further the implementation of clearly articulated telecommunications policy - If there was any aspect of the conditions that affected eligibility, then that was incidental to the Minister's authority to administer spectrum management in accordance with those policy objectives - And, in any event, in the absence of promulgated regulations by the Governor-in-Council pertaining to spectrum licence eligibility, the conditions did not exceed the Minister's authority or conflict with the Governor-in-Council's legislative authority - The Minister correctly and reasonably exercised his authority in this regard. - See paragraphs 62 to 111.

Telecommunications - Topic 1166

Wireless telecommunications services - Regulation - Judicial review (incl. standard of review and time for) - Industry Canada (Minister) issued two decisions respecting an auction for spectrum in the 700 MHz band, setting conditions on the auction and the licences - Telus Communications applied for judicial review, arguing that the Minister lacked authority to impose eligibility criteria on the issuance of licences which was a matter within the regulation making authority of the Governor-in-Council - The Federal Court discussed the standard of review - Here, the wisdom or soundness of the government policy was not challenged, nor was the reasonableness of the Minister's decision to impose conditions on the spectrum licences attacked - Rather, the question was whether there was authority to enact decisions made under a policy - While the interpretation of the Minister's home and closely related statutes was involved, the nature of the question posed was one of true jurisdiction in that a jurisdictional line between the authority of the Minister and the Governor-in-Council was at issue - Therefore, this was a question of statutory interpretation of the nature which attracted a correctness standard of review - See paragraphs 44 to 61.

Telecommunications - Topic 1166

Wireless telecommunications services - Regulation - Judicial review (incl. standard of review and time for) - [See Courts - Topic 4071.3 ].

Cases Noticed:

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. (2011), 400 F.T.R. 28; 2011 FC 1308, affd. (2012), 443 N.R. 291; 2012 FCA 322, refd to. [para. 25].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Trust Business Systems (2007), 361 N.R. 53; 2007 FCA 89, refd to. [para. 25].

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al., [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 845; 2010 FC 1310, refd to. [para. 26].

Sweet et al. v. Canada (1999), 249 N.R. 17 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

May v. CBC/Radio Canada et al. (2011), 420 N.R. 23; 2011 FCA 130, refd to. [para. 26].

Krause et al. v. Canada et al., [1999] 2 F.C. 476; 236 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Moresby Explorers Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 367 N.R. 204; 2007 FCA 273, refd to. [para. 32].

Fisher v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 441 F.T.R. 273; 2013 FC 1108, refd to. [para. 40].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 44].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 44].

Bell Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 397 F.T.R. 278; 2011 FC 1120, refd to. [para. 44].

Goodwin et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 279 F.T.R. 100; 2005 FC 1185, refd to. [para. 44].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 45].

Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2013), 446 N.R. 65; 2013 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 46].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 51].

Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat.

Georgia Strait Alliance et al. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al. (2012), 427 N.R. 110; 2012 FCA 40, refd to. [para. 54].

Canada (Fisheries and Oceans) v. David Suzuki Foundation - see Georgia Strait Alliance et al. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al.

Clare v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 451 N.R. 349; 2013 FCA 265, refd to. [para. 56].

McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission (2013), 452 N.R. 340; 347 B.C.A.C. 1; 593 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 57].

Rogers Communications Inc. et al. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada et al., [2012] 2 S.C.R. 283; 432 N.R. 1; 2012 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 58].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1993), 67 F.T.R. 98; 107 D.L.R.(4th) 190 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 64].

Aviation Roger Forgues Inc. et al. v. Canada (Procureur général) et al., [2001] F.T.R. Uned. 983; 2001 FCT 196, refd to. [para. 64].

Momi et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2007), 293 F.T.R. 133; 2006 FC 738, refd to. [para. 64].

Procureur Général du Canada v. La Compagnie de Publication La Presse, Ltee, [1967] S.C.R. 60, refd to. [para. 65].

Reference Re Broadcasting Act, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 489; 437 N.R. 124; 2012 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 66].

Tétrault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 68].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 140; 344 N.R. 293; 380 A.R. 1; 363 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 68].

Jabel Image Concepts Inc. et al. v. Minister of National Revenue (2000), 257 N.R. 193 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Peach Hill Management Ltd. v. Canada - see Jabel Image Concepts Inc. et al. v. Minister of National Revenue.

R. v. Daoust (C.) et al., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 217; 316 N.R. 203; 2004 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 70].

Barrie Public Utilities et al. v. Canadian Cable Television Association et al. (2001), 273 N.R. 291; 2001 FCA 236, affd. (2003), 304 N.R. 1; 2003 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 71].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat (2009), 395 N.R. 52; 2009 FCA 309, affd. (2011), 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 71].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425, refd to. [para. 73].

Angus et al. v. Canada, [1990] 3 F.C. 410; 111 N.R. 321 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

Carpenter Fishing Corp. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [1998] 2 F.C. 548; 221 N.R. 372 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

Association des crevettiers acadiens du Golfe Inc. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 385 F.T.R. 302; 2011 FC 305, refd to. [para. 80].

Vaziri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2006), 300 F.T.R. 158; 2006 FC 1159, refd to. [para. 80].

Greenisle Environmental Inc. v. Prince Edward Island (2005), 248 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 39; 741 A.P.R. 39; 2005 PESCTD 33, refd to. [para. 83].

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. (2012), 443 N.R. 291; 2012 FCA 322, refd to. [para. 85].

Statutes Noticed:

Department of Industry Act, S.C. 1995, c. 1, sect. 4(1), sect. 5 [para. 19, Annex].

Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18.1 [para. 24].

Radiocommunication Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-2, sect. 2, sect. 5(1), sect. 5(1.1), sect. 5(1.2), sect. 5(1.4), sect. 6(1)(b) [para. 16, Annex].

Radiocommunication Act Regulations (Can.), Radiocommunication Regulations, SOR/96-484, sect. 9(1), sect. 10(1) [para. 18, Annex].

Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, sect. 7, sect. 16, sect. 22(1) [para. 94, Annex].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Johnston, David, Handa, Sunny, Janda, Richard and Morgan, Charles, Communication Law in Canada (2013) (Looseleaf), Issue 46 [para. 78].

Ryan, Michael H., Canadian Telecommunications Law and Regulation (1993), generally [para. 78].

Counsel:

Christopher Rootham and Stephen R. Schmidt, for the applicant;

Michael H. Ryan, Arnold & Porter LLP, London, England, for the applicant;

Sanderson Graham, Gregory Tzemenakis and David Aaron, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Stephen Schmidt, Chief Regulatory Legal Counsel, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant, Telus Communications Company;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on December 3, 2013, in Ottawa, Ontario, before Strickland, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on January 2, 2014.