Federal appeal | Administrative Law
Judicial review
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission could focus on broader evidence
Appellants were appealing 2015 Wholesale Code decision of Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Nine documents were in dispute, and appellant said they were not admissible because not before CRTC, but respondent wanted them admitted. Motion by appellant to set contents of appeal book. Motion granted in part. Admissibility ruling appropriate at this stage as it would allow hearing to proceed in more timely, ordinary fashion. Appellant was interpreting general rule too literally. CRTC operated in ongoing regulatory context, and continually saw same parties on related issues, so could focus on broader evidence, subject to procedural fairness. Past proceedings and regulatory experience could form part of data to draw on. There was at least a case for saying administrative decision maker drew on such data, and seven documents were admissible on that basis, as court may not be able to properly assess decision without them. Two documents, however, post-dated CRTC decision and there was no evidence agenda or policies within pre-dated decision, so these documents were inadmissible.
Bell Canada v. 7262591 Canada Ltd. (Apr. 20, 2016, F.C.A., David Stratas J.A.,
A-51-16) 266 A.C.W.S. (3d) 79.
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission could focus on broader evidence
Appellants were appealing 2015 Wholesale Code decision of Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Nine documents were in dispute, and appellant said they were not admissible because not before CRTC, but respondent wanted them admitted. Motion by appellant to set contents of appeal book. Motion granted in part. Admissibility ruling appropriate at this stage as it would allow hearing to proceed in more timely, ordinary fashion. Appellant was interpreting general rule too literally. CRTC operated in ongoing regulatory context, and continually saw same parties on related issues, so could focus on broader evidence, subject to procedural fairness. Past proceedings and regulatory experience could form part of data to draw on. There was at least a case for saying administrative decision maker drew on such data, and seven documents were admissible on that basis, as court may not be able to properly assess decision without them. Two documents, however, post-dated CRTC decision and there was no evidence agenda or policies within pre-dated decision, so these documents were inadmissible.
Bell Canada v. 7262591 Canada Ltd. (Apr. 20, 2016, F.C.A., David Stratas J.A.,
A-51-16) 266 A.C.W.S. (3d) 79.
