Telecommunications Workers' Union v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommu­nications Commission et al., (1991) 43 F.T.R. 226 (TD)

• Judge: Dubé, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 28, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 43 F.T.R. 226 (TD)

TWU v. CRTC (1991), 43 F.T.R. 226 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Telecommunications Workers' Union (plaintiff) v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission and The Attorney General of Canada (defendants) and Competitive Telecommunications Association (intervenor)

(T-2911-90)

Indexed As: Telecommunications Workers' Union v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommu­nications Commission et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Dubé, J.

March 8, 1991.

Summary:

The Canadian Radio-Television and Tele­communications Commis­sion decided that "resellers" of telecom­munication services were not "companies" within the meaning of the Railway Act and were not subject to Commission regulations. The Telecommuni­cations Union commenced an action for a declaration that the "resell­ers" were "com­panies" within the meaning of the Act. The Attorney General of Canada applied to strike out the statement of claim, arguing that the court's jurisdiction was ousted by s. 29 of the Federal Court Act, or alternatively the action was an abuse of process because the matter had already been decided by the Commission.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, allowed the application and struck the Union's pleading.

Administrative Law - Topic 4562

Judicial review - Declaratory action - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that "... declaratory relief is a dis­cretionary remedy. It may not be used to attack collaterally a decision of an admin­istrative tribunal, more so where the deci­sion under attack has not been appealed or otherwise reviewed in the appropriate manner in accordance with the statute" - See paragraph 15.

Administrative Law - Topic 4562

Judicial review - Declaratory action - The C.R.T.C. ruled that "resellers" were not "companies" under the Railway Act - A union commenced an action for a declar­ation that "resellers" were "companies" under the Act - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, struck out the union's statement of claim, where a review procedure was provided for in the National Telecommunications Powers and Pro­cedures Act - See paragraph 15.

Courts - Topic 4021

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Relief against federal boards, commissions or tribunals - The C.R.T.C. ruled that "resellers" were not "companies" under the Railway Act - A union commenced an action for a declar­ation that "resellers" were "companies" under the Act - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, struck out the union's statement of claim, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction under s. 29 of the Federal Court Act to deal with the matter - The court held that the case should be dealt with in the manner provided in the National Telecommunications Powers and Procedures Act - See paragraphs 1 to 14.

Cases Noticed:

Telecommunications Workers' Union v. Canadian Radio-Television and Tele­communications Commission and CNCP Telecommunications, [1989] 2 F.C. 280; 98 N.R. 93 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 3].

Alberta Government Telephones and Alberta (Attorney General) v. Canada Labour Relations Board and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 348, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 225; 98 N.R. 264, refd to. [para. 6, footnote 4].

Wah Shing Television v. C.R.T.C., Re (1984), 14 D.L.R.(4th) 425 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 6].

Cathay International Television Inc. v. Canadian Radio-Television Commission (1987), 80 N.R. 117; 15 C.P.R.(3d) 417 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 6].

Telephun International Inc. v. Canadian Radio-Television Commission (1989), 25 F.T.R. 261 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 6].

Minister of National Revenue v. Parsons, [1984] 2 F.C. 331 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 6].

Rich Colour Prints Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] 2 F.C. 246; 60 N.R. 235, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 6].

British Columbia Hydro & Power Author­ity v. Westcoast Transmission Co. Ltd. et al., [1981] 2 F.C. 646; 36 N.R. 33, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 6].

Okanagan Helicopters Ltd. v. Canadian Transport Commission and Erickson Air-Crane Co., [1975] F.C. 396; 55 D.L.R.(3d) 598 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 6].

Dee v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration (1987), 17 F.T.R. 304; 4 Imm.L.R.(2d) 19 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 6].

Feder Holdings Ltd. v. Minister of Nation­al Revenue (Customs & Excise) (1987), 81 N.R. 235 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 6].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. and Canadian Na­tional Railway Co. v. Canadian Transport Commission (No. 2), [1987] 2 F.C. 437; 13 F.T.R. 52, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 6].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. and Canadian Na­tional Railway Co. v. Canadian Transport Commission, [1986] 3 F.C. 548; 70 N.R. 157 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 6].

Chan v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1987), 16 F.T.R. 68; 2 Imm.L.R.(2d) 99, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 6].

Dhaliwal v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985), 62 N.R. 44 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 6].

New Brunswick Electric Power Commis­sion v. Maritime Electric Co. Ltd. and National Energy Board (1985), 60 N.R. 203 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 6].

Optical Recording Co. v. Minister of Na­tional Revenue (1990), 116 N.R. 200; 90 D.T.C. 6647 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 6].

Solosky v. Government of Canada (1979), 30 N.R. 380; 105 D.L.R.(3d) 445 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 7].

Cynamid Agricultural de Puerto Rico Inc. v. Commr. of Patents (1983), 74 C.P.R.(2d) 133 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 92(10)(a) [para. 13].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 29 [paras. 1, 9].

National Telecommunications Powers and Procedures Act, R.S.C. 1985, N-20, sect. 49 [paras. 7, 9]; sect. 66, sect. 67 [paras. 8, 9]; sect. 68(1) [para. 9].

Railway Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-3, sect. 334 [paras. 3, 9]; sect. 335 [para. 9].

Counsel:

J. Aldridge, for the plaintiff;

P. Partridge, for the Attorney General of Canada;

S. Scott, for the C.R.T.C.;

S. MacFarlane, for Unitel Communica­tions (intervenor);

T.G. Heintzman, for the Competitive Tele­communications Association (intervenor).

Solicitors of Record:

Rosebloom and Aldridge, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the plaintiff;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendants;

McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the Competitive Telecommunications Association;

Michael H. Ryan, Toronto, Ontario, for Unitel Communications Inc.

This case was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 28, 1991, before, Dubé, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on March 8. 1991.