![Memorandum of Argt]Ment of the Intervener, Telus Communications Inc](http://data.docslib.org/img/535e2a2c4b1aea0e72eb8b7fb53f1391-1.webp)
MEMORANDUM OF ARGT]MENT OF THE INTERVENER, TELUS COMMUNICATIONS INC.
SCC Court File No.:37896
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN BELL CANADA AND BELL MEDIA INC. Appellants (Appellants) and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA I \\, Respondent (Respondent) and
CANADIAN RAD IO -TELEVIS ION AND TELEC OMMUNICATIONS COMMIS SION
Intervener (Pursuant to Rule 22(3)(c)(iv)) and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTAzuO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BzuTISH COLUMBIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL F,OR SASKATCHEWAN, ADVOCACY CENTRE FOR TENANTS ONTARIO, ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMIS SION, BRITISH COLUMBIA SECURITIES COMMIS SION AND ALBERTA SECUzuTIES COMMISSION, ECOruSTICE CANADA SOCIETY, WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (ONTARIO), WORKERS' COMPEN SATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL (NORTHWES T TERzuTORIES AND NUNAVUT), WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL (NOVA SCOTIA), APPEALS COMMISSION FOR ALBERTA WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL (NEW BRUNSWICK), BRITISH COLUMBIA INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION CENTRE FOUNDATION, COUNCIL OF CANADIAN ADMINIS TRATIVE TRIBI-]NALS, CAMBRIDGE COMPARATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FORUM, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ARBITRATORS, ONTARIO LABOUR-MANAGEMENT ARBITRATORS'ASSOCIATION AND CONFERENCE DES ARBITRES DU QUEBEC, -t
I '
-l CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PHARMACY I REGULATORY AUTHORITIES, QUEEN:S PRISON LAW CLINIC, ADVOCATES FOR THE RULE OF LAW, SAMUELSON-GLUSHKO CANADIAN INTERNET l POLICY AND PUBLIC INTEREST CLINIC, CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION, FIRST NATIONS CHILD AND FAMILY CARING SOCIETY OF CANADA, BLUE ANT MEDIA INC., CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, DHX MEDIA LTD., GROUPE V MEDIA INC.,INDEPENDENT BROADCAST GROUP, ABORIGINAL PEOPLES TELEVISION NETIVORK, ALLARCO ENTERTAINMENT INC., BBC KIDS, CHANNEL ZERO, ETHNIC CHANNELS GROUP LTD., HOLLYWOOD SUITE, OUTTV NETWORK INC., STINGRAY DIGITAL GROUP INC., TV5 QUEBEC CANADA, ZOOMERMEDIA LTD. AND PELMOREX WEATHER NETWORKS (TELEVTSION) INC. AND TELUS COMMUNTCATIONS [NC., ASSOChTTON OF CANADIAN ADVERTISERS AND ALLIANCE OF CANADIAN CINEMA, TELEVISION AND RADIO ARTISTS Interveners and
AUDREY BOCTORAND DANIEL ruTRAS
Amici Curiae
Court File No. 37897
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (oN APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF ePPnAr;
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NFL INTERNATIONAL LLC AND NFL PRODUCTIONS LLC Appellants (Appellants) and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent (Respondent) and
CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVIS ION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMIS SION Intervener
.l 't { I
--t (Pursuant to Rule 22(3XcXiv)) i i and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF I QUEBEC, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN, ADVOCACY CENTRE FOR TENANTS ONTARIO, ONTARIO I SECURITIES COMMIS SION, BRITISH COLUMBIA SECURITIES COMMISSION AND ALBERTA SECURITIES COMMISSION, ECOJUSTICE CANADA SOCIETY, WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBI.INAL (ONTARIO), WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TzuB UNAL (NORTHWES T TERzuTORIES AND NUNAVUT), WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL (NOVA SCOTIA), APPEALS COMMISSION FOR ALBERTA WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TzuBUNAL (NEW BRUNS WICK), BRITI SH COLUMBIA INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARB ITRATION CENTRE FOUNDATION, COUNCIL OF CANADIAN ADMINIS TRATIVE TRIBUNAL S, CAMBRIDGE COMPARATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FORUM, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ARBITRATORS, ONTARIO LAB OUR-MANAGEMENT ARBITRATORS'ASSOCIATION AND CONFERENCE DES ARBITRES DU QUEBEC, CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PFIARMACY REGULATORY AUTHORITIES, QUEEN'S PRI$ON LAW CLINIC, ADVOCATES FOR THE RULE OF LAW, SAMUELSON-GLUSHKO CANADIAN INTERNET POLICY AND PIJBLIC INTEREST CLINIC, CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION, FIRST NATIONS CHILD AND FAMILY CARING SOCIETY OF CANADA, TELUS COMMUNICATIONS [NC., ASSOCIATION OF CANADIAN ADVERTISERS AND ALLIANCE OF CANADIAN CINEMA, TELEVISION AND RADIO ARTISTS
Interveners and
AUDREY BOCTOR AND DANIEL ruTRAS
Amici Curiae I
I .i MEMORANDTJM OF ARGT]MENT OF THE INTERVENER, TELUS COMMTINICATIONS INC.
I
_l October 29, 2018 Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP 50 O'Connor Street Suite 1500 Ottawa, Ontario KIP 6L2
Christopher Rootham Michael Ryan
Telephone: 613 231-8080 Fax: 613 238-2098 E-mail: [email protected]
Counsel for the Intervener, Telus Communications Inc.
TO: THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA 301 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0J1
AND TO: McCarthy Tetrault LLP Gowling WLG Canada LLP 66 Wellington Street West 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Suite 5300, Toronto Dominion Bank Tower Ottawa, Ontario Toronto, Ontario KIP 1C3 M5K 1E6 Jeffrey W. Beedell Steven G. Mason Brandon Kain Steve Tanner Telephone: 613 786-0171 James S.S. Holtom Fax: 613 788-3587 Richard Lizius E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 416 601-8200 Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Fax: 416 868-0673 Applicants, for Bell Canada and Bell Media E-mail: [email protected] Inc.
Counsel for Applicants, Bell Canada and Bell Media Inc.
Attorney General of Canada Attorney General of Department of Ontario Regional Office Justice 120 Adelaide Street West, Suite 400 50 O'Connor Street Toronto, Ontario Suite 500 M5H 1T1 Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8 Michael H. Morris Roger Flaim Christopher Rupar Laura Tausky Telephone: 613 670-6290 Telephone: 647 256-7539 Fax: 613 954-1920 Fax:416952-4518 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Counsel for the Respondent, Attorney General of Respondent, Attorney General of Canada Canada
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission LesTerrasse de la Chaudiere, Central Building 1 Promenade du Portage Gatineau, Quebec J8X 4B1
Crystal Hulley-Craig
Telephone: 819 956-2095 Fax: 819953-0589 E-mail: [email protected]
Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Radio- Television and Telecommunications Commission
McGill University Supreme Advocacy LLP 3644 Peel Street 100- 340 Gilmour Street Old Chancellor Day Hall, Faculty of Law, Ottawa, Ontario Room 20 K2P 0R3 Montreal, Que. H3A 1W9 Marie-France Major Daniel Jutras Telephone: 613 695-8855 Ext: 102 Telephone: 514 398-1453 Fax: 613 695-8580 Fax: 514 398-4659 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for the Amicus Curiae, Daniel Amicus Curiae Jutras
IMK LLP Supreme Advocacy LLP Alexis Nihon Plaza, Tower 2 100- 340 Gilmour Street 3500 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West Ottawa, Ontario Montreal, Quebec K2P 0R3 H3Z 3C1 Marie-France Major Audrey Boctor Telephone: 613 695-8855 Ext: 102 Telephone: 514 934-7737 Fax: 613 695-8580 Fax: 514 935-2999 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for the Amicus Curiae, Amicus Curiae Audrey Boctor
Attorney General of Ontario Supreme Advocacy LLP 720 Bay Street 100- 340 Gilmour Street 8th Floor Ottawa, Ontario Toronto, Ontario K2P 0R3 M5G 2K1 Marie-France Major Sara Blake Judie Im Telephone: 613 695-8855 Ext: 102 Telephone: 416 326-4155 Fax: 613 695-8580 Fax: 416 326-4181 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario Supreme Advocacy LLP 1500 - 55 University Avenue 100- 340 Gilmour Street Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M5J 2H7 K2P 0R3
Karen Andrews Marie-France Major
Telephone: 416 597-5855 Telephone: 613 695-8855 Ext: 102 Fax: 416 597-5821 Fax: 613 695-8580 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Ontario Securities Commission Conway Baxter Wilson LLP 2200 - 20 Queen Street West 400-411 Roosevelt Avenue Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S8 Ottawa, Ontario K2A 3X9 Matthew H. Britton Jennifer M. Lynch Benjamin Grant Paloma Ellard David Hainey Telephone: 613 780-2008 Don Young Fax: 613 688-0271 E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 416 593-8294 Fax: 416 593-2319 Agent for Counsel for the Ontario Securities E-mail: [email protected] Commission, British Columbia Securities Commission and Alberta Securities Counsel for the Ontario Securities Commission, Commission British Columbia Securities Commission and Alberta Securities Commission
Ecojustice Canada Society Supreme Law Group 1910 - 111 Bay Street 900 - 275 Slater Street PO BOX 106 Ottawa, Ontario Toronto, Ontario KIP 5H9 M5G 2C8 Moira Dillon Bronwyn Roe Telephone: 613 691-1224 Telephone: 416 368-7533 Fax: 613 691-1338 Fax: 416 363-2746 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Supreme Advocacy LLP Tribunal Ontario 100- 340 Gilmour Street 505 University Avenue Ottawa, Ontario 7th Floor K2P 0R3 Toronto, Ontario M5G 2P2 Marie-France Major
Michelle Alton Telephone: 613 695-8855 Ext: 102 David Corbett Fax: 613 695-8580 Kayla Seyler E-mail: [email protected] Ana Rodriguez
Telephone: 416 573-1704 Fax: 416 326-5164 E-mail: [email protected]
Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Supreme Advocacy LLP Tribunal 100- 340 Gilmour Street 505 University Avenue Ottawa, Ontario 7th Floor K2P 0R3 Toronto, Ontario M5G 2P2 Marie-France Major
Michelle Alton Telephone: 613 695-8855 Ext: 102 David Corbett Fax: 613 695-8580 Kayla Seyler E-mail: [email protected] Ana Rodriguez Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Telephone: 416 573-1704 Worker’s Compensation Appeals Tribunal Fax: 416 326-5164 Northwest Territories and Nunavut and E-mail: [email protected] Worker’s Compensation Appeals Tribunal Nova Scotia Counsel for the Interveners, Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal Northwest Territories and Nunavut and Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal Nova Scotia
Attorney General for Saskatchewan Gowling WLG Canada LLP 900 - 1874 Scarth Street 160 Elgin Street Regina, Saskatchewan Suite 2600 S4P 4B3 Ottawa, Ontario KIP 1C3 Laura Mazenc D. Lynne Watt Telephone: 306 787-6272 Fax: 306 787-0581 Telephone: 613 786-8695 E-mail: [email protected] Fax:613788-3509 E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General for Saskatchewan Ottawa Agent for Counsel of the Intervener, Attorney General of Saskachewan
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP 2900 - 550 Burrard Street 55 rue Metcalfe Vancouver, British Columbia Bureau 1300 V6C 0A3 Ottawa, Ontario Gavin R. Cameron KIP 6L5 Tom Posyniak Sophie Arseneault Telephone: 604 631-4756 Fax: 604 631-3232 Telephone: 613 236-3882 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 613 230-6423 E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, BC International Commercial Arbitration Centre Foundation Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre Foundation
Lax O'Sullivan Lisus Gottlieb LLP Supreme Advocacy LLP 2750 - 145 King St. West 100 - 340 Gilmour Street Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M5H 1J8 K2P 0R3
Terrence J. O'Sullivan Eugene Meehan, Q.C. Paul Mitchell James Renihan Telephone: 613 695-8855 Ext: 101 Fax: 613 695-8580 Telephone: 416 644-5359 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 416 598-3730 E-mail: [email protected] Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Administrative Tribunals Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Administrative Tribunals
National Academy of Arbitrators Caza Saikaley LLP Counsel 220 avenue Laurier Quest . 7 L'Estrange Place Ottawa, Ontario Toronto, Ontario KIP 5Z9 M6S 4S6 Alyssa Tomkins Susan L. Stewart Telephone: 613 565-2292 Telephone: 416 531-3736 Fax: 613 565-2087 Fax: 416 604-2897 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP Caza Saikaley LLP 155 Wellington Street 220 avenue Laurier Ouest 35th floor Ottawa, Ontario Toronto, Ontario KIP 5Z9 M5V 3H1 Alyssa Tomkins Linda R. Rothstein Michael Fenrick Telephone: 613 565-2292 Angela E. Rae Fax: 613 565-2087 Anne Marie Heenan E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 416 646-4300 Fax: 416 646-4301 Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the E-mail: [email protected] Interveners, Ontario Labour-Management Arbitrators' Association and Conference des arbitres du Quebec Counsel for the Interveners, Ontario Labour-Management Arbitrators' Association and Conference des arbitres du Quebec
Goldblatt Partners LLP Goldblatt Partners LLP 20 Dundas Street West, Suite 1100 500-30 Metcalfe St. Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario M5G 2G8 KIP 5L4
Steven Barrett Colleen Bauman
Telephone: 416 979-6422 Telephone: 613 482-2463 Fax: 416 591-7333 Fax: 613 235-3041 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Labour Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Congress Canadian Labour Congress
Procureure generale du Quebec Noel & Associes 1200, Route de I'Eglise 111 rue Champlain 3e etage Gatineau, Quebec Quebec, Quebec J8X 3R1 G1V 4M1 Sylvie Labbe Stephane Rochette Telephone: 819 771-7393 Telephone: 418 643-6552 Fax:819771-5397 Fax: 418 643-9749 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of Agent for Counsel of the Intervener, Quebec Attorney General of Quebec
Shores Jardine LLP Supreme Advocacy LLP 10104 - 103 Avenue 100- 340 Gilmour Street Suite 2250 Ottawa, Ontario Edmonton, Alberta K2P 0R3 T5J 0H8 Marie-France Major William W. Shores, Q.C. Kirk N. Lambrecht, Q.C. Telephone: 613 695-8855 Ext: 102 Fax: 613 695-8580 Telephone: 780 448-9275 E-mail: [email protected] Fax:780423-0163 E-mail: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Interveners, National Association of Counsel for the Intervener, National Association Pharmacy Regulators Authorities of Pharmacy Regulators Authorities
Stockwoods LLP Power Law 77 King Street West, Suite 4130 130 Albert Street P.O. Box 140 Suite 1103 Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario . M5K 1H1 KIP 5G4
Brendan Van Niejenhuis Maxine Vincelette Andrea Gonslaves Telephone: 613 702-5561 Telephone: 416 593-7200 Fax: 613 702-5561 Fax: 416 593-9345 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Agent for Counsel for the Queen's Prison Counsel for the Intervener, Queen's Prison Law Law Clinic Clinic
Attorney General of British Columbia Michael J. Sobkin PO Box 9280 Stn Prov Govt 331 Somerset Street West Victoria, British Columbia Ottawa, Ontario V8W 9J7 K2P 0J8
Leah Greathead Telephone: 613 282-1712 Micah Rankin Fax: 613 288-2896 E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 250 356-8892 Fax: 250 356-9154 Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, E-mail: [email protected] Attorney General of British Columbia
Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of British Columbia
McCarthy Tetrault LLP Power Law 745 Thurlow Street, Suite 2400 130 Albert Street Vancouver, British Columbia Suite 1103 V6E 0C5 Ottawa, Ontario KIP 5G4 Adam Goldenberg Robyn Gifford Darius Bosse Asher Honickman Telephone: 613 702-5566 Telephone: 604 643-7100 Fax: 613 702-5566 Fax: 604 643-7900 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Counsel for the Interveners, Advocates for the Interveners, Advocates for the Rule of Law Rule of Law
Cambridge Comparative Administrative Law Power Law Forum 130 Albert Street Cambridge University - The Faculty of Law Suite 1103 The David Williams Building - 10 West Road Ottawa, Ontario . Cambridge, United Kingdom CB3 9DZ KIP 5G4
Bruno Gelinas-Faucher Maxine Vincelette
Telephone: 737 838-3023 Ext: 44 Telephone: 613 702-5561 Fax: 514 565-9877 Fax: 613 702-5561 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Counsel for the Intervener, Cambridge Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Comparative Administrative Law Forum Cambridge Comparative Administrative Law Forum
Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP Power Law Suite 2600 130 Albert Street 130 Adelaide Street West Suite 1103 Toronto, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario . M5H 3P5 KIP 5G4
J. Thomas Curry Maxine Vincelette Sam Johansen Telephone: 613 702-5561 Telephone: 416 865-3096 Fax: 613 702-5561 Fax: 416 865-9010 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Counsel for the Interveners, Association of Interveners, Association of Canadian Canadian Advertisers and the Alliance of Advertisers and the Alliance of Canadian Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists Cinema, Television and Radio Artists
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Bureau 3700, C.P. 242 55 rue Metcalfe 800, Place Victoria Bureau 1300 Montreal, Quebec Ottawa, Ontario H4Z 1E9 KIP 6L5
Christian Leblanc Sophie Arseneault Micheal Shortt Telephone: 613 236-3882 Telephone: 514 397-7545 Fax: 613 230-6423 Fax: 514 397-7600 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Counsel of Blue Ant Counsel for the Interveners, Blue Ant Media Inc., Media Inc., Canadian Broadcasting Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, DHX Media Corporation, DHX Media Ltd., Groupe V Ltd., Groupe V Media Inc. Media Inc.
Counsel for the Interveners, Independent Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Broadcast Group, Aboriginal Peoples Television Interveners, Independent Broadcast Group, Network, Allarco Entertainment Inc., BBC Kids, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, Channel Zero, Ethnic Channels Group Ltd. Allarco Entertainment Inc., BBC Kids, Channel Zero, Ethnic Channels Group Ltd. Counsel for Hollywood Suite, OUTtv Network Inc., Stingray Digital Group Inc., TV5 Quebec Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Canada, Zoomermedia Ltd. and Pelmorex Interveners, Hollywood Suite, OUTtv Weather Networks Television Inc. Network Inc., Stingray Digital Group Inc., TV5 Quebec Canada, Zoomermedia Ltd. and Pelmorex Weather Networks Television Inc.
Caza Saikaley LLP Universite d'Ottawa 220 avenue Laurier Ouest Common Law Section Ottawa, Ontario 57 Louis Pasteur St. KIP 5Z9 Ottawa, Ontario KIN 6N5 Alyssa Tomkins James Plotkin David Fewer Michel Bastarache Telephone: 613 562-5800 Ext: 2558 Telephone: 613 565-2292 Fax: 613 562-5417 Fax: 613 565-2087 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Counsel for the Intervener, Samuelson-Glushko Ottawa Agent for Counsel of the Intervener, Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Clinic Policy and Public Interest Clinic
Stewart McKelvey Gowling WLG Canada LLP 65 Grafton Street 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 P.O. Box 2140, Station Central Ottawa, Ontario Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island KIP 1C3 CIA 8B9 Guy Regimbald Jonathan M. Coady Justin L. Milne Telephone: 613 786-0197 Fax: 613 563-9869 Telephone: 902 629-4520 Email: [email protected] Fax: 902 566-5283 E-mail: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Bar Association Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Bar Association
Conway Baxter Wilson LLP Stikeman Elliott LLP 400-411 Roosevelt Avenue 1600-50 O’Connor Street Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario K2A 3X9 K1P 6L2
David P. Taylor Nicholas Peter McHaffie Sara Clarke Telephone: 613-566-0545 Telephone: 613 691-0368 Fax: 613-230-8877 Fax: 613 688-0271 Email: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
Counsel for the First Nations Child and Family Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the First Caring Society of Canada Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada
Community & Legal Aid Services Programme Supreme Advocacy LLP York University, Osgoode Hall Law School 100- 340 Gilmour Street Ignat Kaneff Build Ottawa, Ontario 4700 Keele Street K2P 0R3 Toronto ON M3J 1P3 Marie-France Major Subodh Bharati Telephone: 613 695-8855 Ext: 102 Telephone: 416-736-5029 Fax: 613 695-8580 Fax: 416-736-5564 E-mail: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, Counsel for the Intervener, Community and Legal Community and Legal Aid Service Program Aid Service Program
Hadekel Shams S.E.N.C.R.L. 305, rue Bellechasse est, bureau 400A Montrea, QC H2S 1W9
Counsel for the Intervener, Community and Legal Aid Service Programme
LEGAL AID ONTARIO COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICE Refugee Law Office OTTAWA 20 Dundas Street West 1301 Richmond Toronto, ON M5G 2H1 Ottawa, ON K2B 7Y4
Anthony Navaneelan Nicholas Hersh Audrey Macklin Ottawa Agent for the Counsel for the Telephone: 416-799-8111 ext. 7181 Intervener, Canadian Association of Refugee Fax: 416-977-5567 Lawyers Email: [email protected]
Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
PARKDALE COMMUNITY LEGAL COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES OF SERVICES OTTAWA-SOUTH OFFICE 1266 Queen Street West 406-1355 Bank Street Toronto, ON M6K 1L3 Ottawa, ON K1H 8K7
Toni Schweitzer Elaine Simon Ronald Poulton Telephone: 613-733-0140 Telephone: 416-531-2411 Fax: 613-733-0401 Fax: 416-531-0885 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Ottawa Agent for the Intervener, Parkdale Counsel for the Intervener, Parkdale Community Community Legal Services Legal Services
JACKMAN NAZAMI & ASSOCIATES CHAMP & ASSOCIATES 536 St. Clair Avenue West, Unit 3 43 Florence Street Toronto, ON M6C 1A6 Ottawa, ON K2P 0W6
Hadayt Nazami Bijon Roy Telephone: 416-653-9964 ext. 226 Telephone: 613-237-4740 Fax: 416-653-1036 Fax: 613-232-2680 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Counsel for the Respondent, Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Alexander Vavilov Respondent Alexander Vavilov
.l
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE No
PART I - Overview..... I
PART II - Position on Issues 1
PART III - Submissions .2
C+^-l^-l D^-,:^--, uL6r.ltLl a) The need for a nuanced approach...... ) b) Application of this nuanced approach ...... 3 i) Deference is a rebuttable presumption ...... 3 iD The circumstances rebutting deference A iii) Absence of expertise rebrits the presumption of deference...... 5 iv) No deference for non-adjudicative adminishative bodies when they are insufficiently independent from the private, financial, or institutional interests of the Crown...... 6 Irrl.urprctatiun uf s. 9(1Xh) of the Broudcusting Act 8 PART IV - Costs PARTV-OralArgument. 10 Schedule A - Arrthorities .. 11 Schedule B - Legislation .. 13 I I l PART I - Overview 1 TELUS Communications Inc. intervenes in this appeal on two issues. First, the standard of review adopted in Dunsmuir should be modified in cases of appeals or jadicial review application from administrative tribunals in two respects. (i) When the question of law is outside of the expertise of the administrative body (not merely in cases of central importance to the legal system as a whole); and (ii) When a non-adjudicative administrative body is determining a right and the surrounding circumstances indicate that the body is insufficiently independent from the private, c-^-^:^1rrllallulill, ur^-:^-L:a--.i^^^l lllstltuuullill lrlt('ltists:^r^-^^L^ uI^f .L^ulti \-luwll./1-^--* 2. In this case, the CRTC interpreted its home statute, an issue presumptively within its expertise. Moreover, there is no ground for doubting its independence from the interests of the Crown. The appropriate standard ofreview in this appeal is therefore reasonableness. J Second, onthe interpretation of s. 9(1)(h) of the Broadcasting Act, TELUS makes two submissions - one narrow and ons broad. The narrow pcint is that, contrary tc the position taken by the BellA{FL Appellants, the Super Bowl Order regulates a series of programs, not a particular program, and as a mattsr of statutory interpretation the impugned order therefore falls within the scope of the CRTC's powers. The broader point is that the scope of the CRTC's authority under s. 9(l)(h) should be determined, consistent with the existing case law, by deciding whether, considered objectively, the order first deals with a class of subject referred to in the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in s. 3(1) of the Act and, second, is consistent with the core purposes of the Act. PART II - Position on Issues 4. TELUS' position on the issues raised by the BellAtrFL appellants is as follows: (i) The applicable standard of review is reasonableness; (ii) The CRTC orders are intra vires s.9(1Xh) of the Broadcasting Act; (iii) TELUS takes no position on any alleged conflict with the Copyright Act. 1 PART III - Submissions Standard of Review a) The need for a nuanced approach 5 The Attorney General of Canada ("AGC") and the Bell/NFL Appellants have staked out opposite poles on standard of review. The AGC proposes a nanow concept ofjudicial review, on the basis that this narrow approach is consistent with the principle of legislative supremacy. The BellAtrFL Appellants, by contrast, propose an exacting approach to judicial review grounded in the "r'rle of lar.v."i 6 Both approaches are flawed. Neither the rule of law nor legislative supremacy is the exclusive organizing principle of our system ofjustice. Rather, these two principles coexist with other organizingprinciples: federalism, democracy, constitulionalism, respect for minorities2, the separation of powers3, the independence of the judiciarya, and others. These competing principles must be balanced against each other, including when determining the appropriate standard of review. 7 The AGC's reliance on legislative supremacy presupposes that the interpretation of legislation underlying the administrative state should he the preserve of administrative actors, so long as their decisions are reasonable, in all but a narrow range of cases. This approach requires the virtual abdication by the courts of a fundamental part of their constitutional role. I The BeIIAIFL Appellants use the "rule of larv" in the traditional meaning that "the rule of larv is supreme o..'er officials of the go-.'ernment as.*'ell as private individuals and thereby preclusive of the influence of arbitrary power" (Reference Re Manitoba Language Rtghts, [1985] 1 SCR 72I at 748. The term "rule of lad' can, however, also be understood as a broader principle incorporating a greater series of interests: see Andrea Cole and Michelle Flaherty, "Access to Justice Looking for a Constitutional Home: Implications for the Administrative Legal System" (2016),94 Canadian Bar Review 14 atpp 79- 24. (Telus Communications' Book of Authorities ('Telus BOA") Tab 21, VoL II) 2 Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217 atpara32. (Telus BOA Tab 22, Vol. Il 3 Doucet-Boudreauv Nova Scotia (Minister of Education),Z}}3 SCC 62 atpara33 (Telus BOA Tab 14, Vol. I) a Babcockv Canada (Attorney General),2002 SCC 57 atparu54. (Tetus BOA Tab 4, Vol. I) 2 8 The BellA{FL Appellants' over-reliance on the rule of law is also misplaced. Judges do not have a monopoly on maintaining the rule of law. If administrative tribunals can be trusted to adjudicate constitutional rightss, surely the same tribunals can be trusted to safeguard the organizing principles of our constitution, including the rule of law. As former Chief Justice Mclachlin wrote in 1998, a fuller appreciation of the rule of law "makes it possiblefor institutions other than courts to play key roles in maintaining it . . . courts do not necessarily have a monopoly on the values of reasons andfairness."G 9 TELUS urges this Court to adopt a nuanced approach to standard of review that balances the cornpeting orgai'izingprincipies ai stake. A paradigm built on a singie animating principle (as advocated by both the AGC and the BeIIAIFL Appellants) is superficially attractive - but an absence of nuance inevitably leads to injustice in many cases. If courts can do anything, it is balance competing principles: the standard of review paradigm should not impede courts from performing this balancing function. b) Application of this nuanced approach 10 TELUS proposes a standard of review paradigm that embraces nuance and balance over absolute adherence to either the "rule of law" or "legislative supremacy" approaches. This proposed paradigm finds its roots in the standard of review approach adopted by this Court in Dunsmuir, but is modified to better balance the competing principles at issue l) Deference is a rebuttable presumption 11. TELUS agrees with the AGC that courts should presumptively apply the reasonableness standard of review to an administrative body's determination on all questions of law. Characteizing an issue of la.;r as 'Jurisdictional" has proven confusing and unhelpful; consistent vrith fhs vierl,,g 5 Nova Scotia (Ll/orkers' Compensation Board) v Martin,2003 SCC 54. (Telus BOA Tab 19, Vol. II) 6 Mclachlin J. (as she then was), "The Roles of Administrative Tribunals and Courts in Maintaining the Rule of Law" (1999),12 CJALP l7I at 174-175.(Telus BOA Tab 30, Vol. Il J expressed by several judges of this Court, TELUS submits that this category should be "euthanized."T ii) The circumstances rebutting deference 12, TELUS parts company with the AGC about when the presumption of reasonableness may be rebutted. The presumption should be rebuttable in five cirbumstances. The first three circumstances fit within existing categories of "correctness" review already recognized in Duns muir and elsewhere : (i) When an administrative tribunal is determining the constitutional validity of a statute; (ii) When ihe issue of iaw concerns the ciemarcation iine between competing aciministrative bodies; (iii) When there is express or implied statutory language requiring the correctness standard of review.s 13. TELUS submits that the standard of review adopted in Dunsmulr should however be modified in and the presumption of reasonableness rebutted in two further circumstances: (iv) When the question of law is outside of the expertise of the administrative body (not merely in cases of central importance to the legal system as a whole); (v) When a non-adjudicative administrative body is determining a right and the surrounding circumstances indicate that the body is insuffrciently independent from the privaie, financial, or institutional interests of the Crown. The last two circumstances depart from the approach adopted in Dunsmuir andrequire elaboration 7 Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney General),2018 SCC 3I atparu 41. (Telus BOA Tab 8, Vol.I) 8 Rogers Communications Inc. v Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada,2012 SCC 35 (provision language conferring concurrent jurisdiction on a Superior Court and an administrative body) (Telus BOA Tab 24, Vol. II); Tervita Corp. v Canada (Commissioner of Competition),2}I1 SCC 3 atpara 36 (clause requiring review as if the tribunal's decision were a judgement of the Court).(Telus BOA Tab 28, VoL II) 4 iiD Absence of expertise rebuts the presumption of deference 14. Under the current Dunsmuir paradigm, decisions on issues outside the adjudicator's specialized area of expertise are reviewable on a standard of correctness only if they raise general questions of central importance to the legal system as a whole. The requirement that a law be "general" and of "central importance to the legal system" is vague and unhelpful. The dispute between judges in this Court over whether issues such as the scope of solicitor-client privilegee, deliberative privilegelO, or even the application of the Chartertt are of "general" importance demonstrates that "generality" is in the eye of the beholder, despite this Court's assurances that it will reject a"liberal application of this category."r2 While some post- Dunsmuir cases continue to focus on expertisel3, the Courl's gazehasshifted to the nature of the issue instead of the expertise of the tribunal. 15. The emphasis should be placed back where it belongs: the relative expertise of the administrative decision-maker. The additional requirement that only questions of general importance to the legal system as a whole should be abandoned. As this Court said in Baruie Public Utilities (decided pre-Dunsmuir),"[dJeference to the decision maker is calledfor only when it is in some woy more expert than the court and the question under consideration is one thatfalls within the scope of its greater expertise."l4 This expertise may arise through "habitualfamiliarity with the legislative scheme",through specific qualifications set out in legislation, or other institutional safeguardsls - but it is relative expertise that should be key to deciding the standard of .review. e Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v University of Calgary,20!6 SCC 53 (Telus BOA Tab 2, Vol. I) t0 Commission scolaire de Laval v Syndicat de I'enseignement de la rdgion de Laval,20l6 SCC 8 (Telus BOA Tab 13,1/ol. I) rt Quehec (C,omni,s,sion des normes, de I'd,quit6., de Ia santd et de la si,curit,{, du travail) v Caron,20!8 SCC ? (Tplu.c BOA Tnh 20- Vnl IIl 12 Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney General),2018 SCC 3I atpara 42. (Telus BOA Tab 8, Vol.I) 13 Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 3 SCR 471, 2011 SCC 53 atpara25 (Telus BOA Tab 8, Vol. I); Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 atpara25 Telus BOA Tab 9, Vol. I) ra Barrie Public Utilities v Canadian Cable Television Assn.,2003 SCC 28 atparal6. (Telus BOA Tsb 5, VoI. I) rs Edmonton (City) v Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd.,2016 SCC 47 atpara33. (Telus BOA Tab 15, Vol. I) 5 16. To give one example of this approach working well in practice, the law of promissory estoppel could easily be characterized as "general"; nonetheless, this Court held that it falls squarely within the expertise of labour arbitrators - warranting deference.tu By contrast, the interpretation of pension legislation is specialized and narrow, yet still subject to the correctness standard because it falls outside the expertise of a labour arbitrator.lT t7. Dealing specifically with the CRTC, this Court and other courts often determined the appropriate standard of review, pre-Dunsmuir,by focusing on the level of expertise or specialization the CRTC could bring to a particular issue, without taking on the burden of considering whether the question raised was one of general iinportance. Thus, this Couil has concluded tlia'r the CRTC's ability to revisit and revise rebate charges for telephone companies was outside of its expertise.l8 The Federal Court of Appeal has also concluded that issues of general partnership law are outside of the CRTC's expertise.le In TELUS' submission, the approach adopted in these cases reflects an appropriate balancing of the principles underlying judicial review. 18 In conclusion, courts should oontinue to be presumptively deferential to administrative bodies' decisions on questions of iaw, but that presumption should be rebuttable in cases where the administrative body has no special expertise in respect of the issue raised on judicial review. In these cases, "conectness" should apply. iv) No deference for non-adjudicative administrative bodies when they are insuTficiently independent from the private, financial, or institutional interests of the Crown t9 Judicial review of adjudicative tribunal decisions has overwhelmingly shaped the existing Dunsmuir paradigm. Labour boards20, property tax assessment boards, human rights tribunals, 16 Nor-Man Regional Heatth Authority Inc. v Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals,Z}ll SCC 59 atpara3S (Telus BOA Tab 18, Vol.II) " City of Saint John v Saint John Firefighters' Association, International Association of Fire Fighters, Local77I,2011 NBCA 3l (Telus BOA Tab 12, Vol.I) t8 Bell Canada v Canada (CRTC), t19891 1 SCR 1722 at 1746. (Telas BOA Tab 6, Vol. I ) re TELUS Communications Inc. v Canada (Attorney General),2005 FCA 409 atparall. (Tetus BOA Tab 16, Vol. I) 20 The role that labour law has played in the evolution ofjudicial review is particularly acute: see David Mullan, "Labour Law and Administrative Law: Still the Tail that Wags the Dog?" (2005) 12 CLELJ 213. (Telus BOA Tab 31, Vol. Il 6 and other specialized tribunals share certain characteristics, the most important of which is that the tribunal does not have a stake in the outcome of its own decisions. 20. Administrative law also encompasses a wide variety of non-adjudicative decision-making. Those non-adjudicative decision-makers often render decisions that are closely entangled with their own interests and their position within the administrative state. Examples of these situations include the following: (i) In deciding not to show deference to government decisions on access to information, this Court quoted with approval a Federal Court of Appeal decision stating that "[hJeads of gov€i'lirrt€tii insiituiiions are noi disinteresied in the interpreiation and application of the Access to Information Act and are likely to have an institutional predisposition towards restricting the public right of access and construing the exempt io ns b r o adly."2l (ii) A senior public servant deciding a grievance by a more junior public servant "is not an independent adjudicator, but rather o senior representative of the employer. Deference on questions of law in the circumstances raised in [that instanceJ should nol be extended to a person who is not independentfrom the employer."22 (iii) Deference has not been extended to a public servant deciding whether he or she is estopped from granting, denying, or changing the terms of a government licence.z3 21. Former Justice Evans has suggested that "[oJnly decision makprs who are required by the duty of fairness to afford affected individuals an efective opportunity to make submissions on questions of statutory interpretation should be held to have an implied power to decide questions of lmu and tlrc benefit of Dunsnmir"s deferertial standard of review."24 Wrile Justice Evans' point 2r Macdonell v Quebec (Commission d'accds d l'information),2002 SCC 71 atpara 8, quoting from 3430901 Canada Inc. v Canada (Minister of Industry),2002Fc{254 atpara3}. (Telus BOA Tabs 16 and I respectively, Vol. I) 22 Appleby-Ostroffv Canada (Attorney General),2011 FCA 84 atpara23. (Telus BOA Tab 3, VoL I) 23 Malcolmv Canada (Fisheries and Oceans),2014 FCA 130 atpan2g andTelus Communications Company v Canada (Attorney General),20l4Fc ll57 atpara3l. (Telus BOA Tab 17, VoL I) 2a Hon. John M. Evans, "Dunsmuir - Reflections of a Recovering Judge" (1 March, 2018), online: lo 1 1/dunsm iudge-hon-john-m-evans. (Telus BOA Tab 32, Vol. Il 7 may not apply to some cases involving polycentric policy-making, his broader point remains sound: the presumption of deference should not always extend to non-adjudicative decision- making by the executive branch of government. The presumption of reasonableness should be rebutted when a non-adjudicative body is determining rights in circumstances where the Crown has a private, financial, or institutional interest at stake. 22. In this particular appeal, the CRTC was acting independently from the private, financial, or institutional interests of the Crown by making the Super Bowl Order. The Crown has no private, financial, or institutional interests at stake in the Super Bowl Order, and in any event the CRTC is iuily indeperrder-rt frorn the rest of the Crown, being served by inclependent members with security of tenure.2s Had this decision been made by a public servant within the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development in furtherance of some institutional interest of the Crown, for example, the result may be different - but in this case, the CRTC is sufficiently independent that this exception to the presumption of reasonableness does not apply. Interpretation of s. 9(1Xh) of the Broadcasting Act 23 TELUS makes two submissions about the scope of s. 9(1)(h) of the Act - one naffow and one broad. The narrow point is that the Super Bowl order does not regulate a single program (as alleged by the BellA{FL Appellants) but rather a series of programs spread over a roughly 4-hour time period. The football game is a single program, but so too is each commercial. This conclusion flows from the definition of "program" in the Broadcasting Act,which reads as follows: "program meqns sounds or visual images, or a combination of sounds and visual images, that are intended to inform, enlighten or entertain . . ."26 On this definition, every collcction of sound and visual imagcs is a "program." In othcr words, cach advcrtisement is a 'oprogram" in addition to the actual Super Bowl football game. Therefore, even if the BellAtrFL Appellants are correct that s. 9(l)(h) does not permit regulation of a single program, the Super Bowl Order regulates a series of programs during a particular timeslot. TELUS agrees with the "Blue Ant" intervenors on this point. 2s Canadian Radiolelevision and Telecommunications Commission Act, RSC 1985, c C-22, s3. 26 BroadcastingAct, SC 1991, c 11 s 2(1). 8 24 The broader point is that the decided cases establish that a proposed order made in reliance upon s. 9(1Xh) must meet two requirements. First, when considered objectively, it must deal with a class of subjects referred to in the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in s. 3(1) of the Act. Second, it must also be consistent with the core purposes of the Act intended by Parliament and the powers granted to the CRTC. 25 These two requirements flow from three decisions: (i) The decision of this Court in CKOY,21 where this Court concluded that the validity of a regulation enacted under similarly-worded predecessor legislation must be tested by deter-mining whether the regulatiorr deals with a "class of subiects"2s refeired to iir the list of broadcasting policies; (ii) The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Canadian Broadcasting League, where that Court applied CKOYto the predecessor to s. 9(1)(h), stating that 9(1)(h) granted even broader authority than the provision in CKOY)Ze; and (iii) The decisiori of the majority of this Court in VFS that"[tJhere is no.doubt that the licensing and regulation-making powers granted to the CRTC are broad'3o and that that the declarations of policy in section3 "should be given due weight in interpreting specific provisions of the Act."3r 26. In that final case, the majority of this Court concluded that the creation of exclusive rights for broadcasters to control the exploitation of their signals or works by retransmission was "too' great a stretchfrom the core purpo,se,s" set out in the Act. In this case, by contrast, the cultural 27 cl(oyv R, u9791I S.C.R. 2. (Telus BOA Tub 7,IloL I) 28 lhid. at p 1 1, See also Telecommunication,s Workers T-Inian v C,anadian Radio-televi,sion and Telecommunications Commission,2003 FCA 381 atpua. 68 ("Tlte CRTC is given th.e. d.isuetion to determine when and how [the powers conferred by s. 9J should be exercised, taking into account the policies setforth in the Act. It is clear that Parliament intended the CRTC to be the only authority w;ith the broad disuetion to decide how best to implement broadcasting policy."). (Telus BOA Tab 25, Vol. ID 2e Canadian Broadcasting League v Canada (CRTC), tl9831 I FC 182 atp 192. This decision was affirmed by this Court, [1985] 1 SCR 174. (Telus BOA Tab 11, Vol.I) 30 Reference re Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-167 ond Broadcasting Order CRTC 2010- 168,2012 SCC 68 ("VFS') atpara15. (Telus BOA Tab 23, Vol. Il 3t lbid atpara3z. 9 -t I aims of the impugned order fall clearly within the core purposes set out in the Broadcasting Act I I (as more thoroughly explained by the AGC). I 27. Consistent withCKOY,Canadian Broadcasting League and the VFS Case, the scope of the CRTC's authority under s. 9(1)(h) should be determined by deciding whether, considered objectively, the order first deals with a class of subjects referred to in the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in s 3(1) of the Act and, second, is consistent with the core purposes of the Act. The impugned order in this case meets that test. PART IV - Costs l 28. TELUS does not seek costs in this appeal, and requests that no order of costs be made against it. PARTV- OralArgument 29. TELUS seeks lbave to make oral argument in these appeals for.a total of 10 minutes. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 26th day of October,2018. ' ''.' -.a: Miohaol Ryan & Christopher R.ootham Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP 50 O'Connor Street, Suite 300 Ottawa, ON KIP 6Lz Christopher Rootham l Michael Ryan Telephone: (613) 23 1 -8080 FAX: (613) 238-2098 E-mail : christopher.t'[email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Telus Communications Inc. I 10 SCHEDULE ..A' - AUTHORITIES Tab Authorities Para. 1 3430901 Canada Inc. v Canada (Minister of Industry),[2002] I FC 421, 20 2001FCA254 2. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v University of Calgary, t4 2016 SCC 53 3 Appleby-Ostroffv Canada (Attorney General),2011 FCA 84 20 4 Babcock v Canada (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 57 6 5 Barrie Public Utilities v Canadian Cable Television Assn.,2003 SCC 28 15 6 Bell Canadav Canada (CRTC), [1989] 1 SCR 1722 17 7 CKOYv R, U9791I S.C.R.2. 25 8 Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney 11, 14 General),20l8 SCC 31 9 Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney T4 General), [2011] 3 SCR 47I,2011 SCC 53 10 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa,2009 SCC 12 t4 11 Canadian Broadcasting League v Canada (CRTC), U9831 1 FC 182. 25 Affirmed by this Court, [1985] 1 SCR 174 12. City of Saint John v Saint John Firefighters' Association, International l6 Association of Fire Fighter,r, f,ncnl77l,2Q11 NRCA i1 13 Concmission scolaire de Lqval v Syndicat de I'enseignement de la rdgion de l4 Laval,20l6 SCC 8 14. Doucet-Boudreauv Nova Scotia (Minister of Education),2}}3 SCC 62 6 t5 Edmonton (City) v Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd.,2016 15 SCC t6 ltfacdonell v Qucb c c (Cornmis sion d' accd s d l'information), 200? SCC 7 1 at 70 para 8, quoting from 3430901 Canada Inc. v Canada (Minister of Industry), 2002FCA254 l7 Malcolmv Canada (Fisheries and Oceans),2014 FCA 130 20 18 Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc. v Manitoba Association of Health t6 Care Professionals,2Ol l SCC 59 l9 Nova Scotia (VVorkers' Compensation Board) v Martin,2003 SCC 54 8 20 Quebec (Commission des normes, de I'dquit6, de la santd et de la sdcuritd du I4 travail) v Caron,2018 SCC 3 11 2l Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] I SCR 721 5 22. Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR2I7 6 23 Reference re Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-167 and 25 Broadcasting Order CRTC 2010-16B, 2012 SCC 68 24. Rogers Communications Inc. v Society of Composers, Authors and Music 12 Publishers of Canada,2012 SCC 35 25 Tele c ommunications Worker s Union v Canadian Radio-televis ion and 25 Telecommunications Commission, 2003 FCA 3 8 1 26. Telus Communications Inc. v Canada (Attorney General),2005 FCA 409 t7 27. Telus Communic ations Company v Canada (Attorney Gener al), 20I 4 F C 20 tI57 28. Tervita Corp. v Canada (Commissioner of Competition),20l5 SCC 3 t2 Publications 29 Access to Justice Lookingfor a Constitutional Home: Implications for the 5 Administrative Legal System" (2016), 94 Canadian Bar Review 14 30. McLachlin J. (as she thenwas), "The Roles of Administrative Tribunals and 8 Courts in Maintaining the Rule of Law" (1999), 12 CJALP 171 31. David Mullan, "Labour Law and Administrative Lati: Still the Tail that t9 V[rags the Dog? " (2005) 12 CLEIJ 213. 32. Hon. John M. Evans, "Dunsmuir - Reflections of a Recovering Judge" (I 2t March,2018), online: https : //www, administrativ elawmatter s, com/bl o g/2 0 I B/0 3 /Q I /dunsmuir- r efl e c t i o n s - of- a -r e c ov e r i n g-j u dge -ho n-j o hn-m- ev ans. 12 -l I -l SCHEDULE B - LEGISLATION 1. Canadian Radiolelevision and Telecommunications Commission Act, RSC 1985, c C-22, s 3. 2. Broadcasting Act, SC 1991, c 11 s 2(1) and 9 I 13 ,lI 1 11 1 CANADA CONSOLIDATION CODIFICATION Canadian Radio-television and Loi sur le Conseil de la Telecommunications radiodiffusion et des Commission Act t6l6communications canadiennes R.S.C., 1985, c. C-22 L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-22 I Current to October 3,2018 A lour au 3 octobre 2018 I Last amended on July 1,2014 Dernidre modification le 1 iuillet 2014 Published by the Minister of Justice at the following address: Publi6 par le ministre de la Justice i l'adresse suivante http://laws-lois.justice. gc.ca http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca 17 -t I canadiennes Ca n a di a n R a di o -tel evi si o n a nd Te I ecom m u ni eati o ns C o m m i ssio n Conseil de la radiodiffusion et de, tdl4communications lnterprotation D6finitions -l Sections 2-5 Articles 2-5 I Establishment and Constitution Mise en place du conseil of Commission Gommission established Etablissement 3 (1) There is established a commission, to be known as 3 (1) Est constitu6 le Conseil de la radiodiffrrsion et des the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications t6l6communications canadiennes, compos6 d'au plus Commission, consisting of not more than 13 members, to treize membres, nomm6s par le gouverneur en conseil. be appointed by the Governor in Council. Tenure Mandat (2) A member shall be appointed to hold office during (21 La dur6e maximale du mandat est de cinq ans pour good behaviour for a term not exceeding five years but tous les conseillers. Ceux-ci occupent leur poste i titre in- may be removed at any time by the Governor in Council amovible, sous r6serye de r6vocation motiv6e de la part for cause. d.u gouverneur en conseil. Re-appointment Renouvellement (31 Subject to section 5, a member is eligible for re-ap- (31 Sous r6serve de I'article 5, le mandat des conseillers pointment. est renouvelable. L.R. (1 ch. c-22, an. 3; 1 991, ch. 1 1, art. 76; 201 0, ch. 12, a^. 1701, R.S., 1 985, c. c-22, s. 3; 1991, c. 1 1, s. 76; 2010, c. 1 2, s' 1701. 985), I i J Current to October 3, 2018 A iour au 3 octobre 2018 Last amended on July 1,2014 Derniere modification le I iuillet 2014 _l 13 CANADA CONSOLIDATION CODIFICATION Broadcasting Act Loi sur la radiodiffusion S.C. 1991 , c. 1 1 L.C.1991, ch.11 il :l J J J Current to October 3. 2018 A lour au 3 octobre 2018 J Last amended on December 16,2014 Dernidre modification le 16 d6cembre2014 _l Published by the Minister of Justice at the following address: Publi6 par le ministre de li Justice i l'adresse suivante http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca I J 14 S.G. 1991, c. 11 L.C. 1991, ch. 11 An Act respecting broadcasting and to Loi concernant la radiodiffusion et modifiant amend certain Acts in relation thereto and in ceftaines lois en cons6quence et concernant relation to radiocom munication la radiocommunication lAssented to I st Febt'uary I 99 ll fsanctionnde Ie 1"' f4urier I 99 Il Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of Sa Majest6, sur l'avis et avec le consentement du 56- the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, en- nat et de la Chambre des communes du Canada, acts as follows: 6dicte : Short Title Titre abrege Short title Titre ab1696 1 This Act may be cited as the Broqdcasting Act. 1 Loi sur la radiodiffusion. PART I PARTIE I General Dispositions g6n6rales lnterpretation D6finitions Definitions D6finitions 2 (11 InthisAct, 2 (1) Les d6finitions qui suivent s'appliquent i la pr6- sente loi. broadcasting means any transmission of programs, whether or not encrypted, by radio waves or other means ConseilLe Conseil institu6 par la .Loi sur Ie Corceil de Ia of telecommunication for reception by the public by radiodiffusion et des tdlAcommunications canqdiennes. means of broadcasting receiving apparatus, but does not (Commission) include any such transmission of programs that is made solely for performance or display in a public place; (ra- 6mission Les sons ou les images - ou leur combinaison diodiffusion) - destin6s d informer ou divertir, iL l'exception des images, muettes ou non, consistant essentiellement en broadcasting receiving apparatus means a device, or des lettres ou des chiftres. (program) combination of devices, intended for or capable ofbeing used for the reception ofbroadcasting; (rdcepteur) encodageTraitement 6lectronique ou autre visant i em- pOcher la r6ception en clair. (encrypted) hroadcasting undertaking includes a distribution un- dertaking, a programming undertaking and a network; entreprise de distribution Entreprise de r6ception de (entre p ri se d e ra d i o d i ffu si o n) radiodiffusion pour retransmission, i I'aide d'ondes Current to October 3, 2018 A jour au 3 octobre 2018 Last amended on December 16,2014 Dernidre modification le 16 d6cembre 2014 1r Broadcasting Badiodiffusion PART I Ggneral PARTIE I Dispositions gdn6rales lnterpretation Definitions Seetion 2 Article 2 Commission means the Canadian Radio-television and radio6lectriques ou d'un autre moyen de t6l6communica- Telecommunications Commission established by the tion, en vue de sa r6ception dans plusieurs r6sidences Canadian Radio-teleuision and Telecommunications permanentes ou temporaires ou locaux d'habitation, ou Commis sion Act ; (C o n s e i I) en vue de sa r6ception par une autre entreprise sem- blable. (di stri buti o n u n d e rtaki n g) Corporation means the Canadian Broadcasting Corpora- tion continued by section 36; (Soci6tA entreprise de programmation Entreprise de transmis- sion d'6missions soit directement i l'aide d'ondes radio- distribution undertaking means an undertaking for the 6lectriques ou d'un autre moyen de t6l6communication, reception ofbroadcasting and the retransmission thereof soit par I'interm6diaire d'une entreprise de distribution, by radio waves or other means of telecommunication to en vue de leur r6ception par le public i l'aide d'un r6cep- more than one permanent or temporary residence or teur. (p rog ra m m i n g u n d e rta ki n g) dwelling unit or to another such undertaking; (entre- prise de distribution) entreprise de radiodiffusron S'entend notamment d'une entreprise de distribution ou de programmation, ou d'un encrypted means treated electronically or otherwise for r6seau. (bro a d casti n g u n d e rta ki n g) the purpose of preventing intelligible reception; (enco' dage) exploitation temporaire d'un r6seau Exploitation d'un r6seau en l'ue d'une certaine 6mission ou s6rie d'6mis- Iicence means a licence to carry on a broadcasting un- sions couwant une p6riode maximale de soixante jours. dertaking issued by the Commission under this Act; (/i (te m po ra ry netwo rk o pe rati o n) cence) Iicence Licence d'exploitation d'une entreprise de radio- Ministermeans such member of the Queen's Privy Coun- diffrrsion, d6liw6e par le Conseil aux termes de la pr6- cil for Canada as is designated by the Governor in Coun- senteloi. (licence) cil as the Minister for the purposes of this Act; (ministre) ministre Le membre du Conseil priv6 de la Reine pour le networkincludes any operation where control over all or Canada charg6 par le gouverneur en conseil de I'applica- any part ofthe programs or program schedules of one or tion de la pr6sente loi. (Minister) more broadcasting undertakings is delegated to another undertaking or person; (rdsea u) ondes radiodlectriques Ondes 6lectromagn6tiques de fr6quences inf6rieures a 3 000 GHz transmises dans I'es- program means sounds or visual images, or a combina- pace sans guide artificiel. (radio waves) tion of sounds and visual images, that are intended to in- form, enlighten or entertain, but does not include visual radi o diff u sion Transmission, i l'aide d'ondes radio6lec- lmages, whether or not combined with sounds, that con- triques ou de tout autre moyen de t6l6communication, sist predominantly of alphanumeric text; (6mission) d'6missions encod6es ou non et destin6es i 6tre regues par le public i I'aide d'un r6cepteur, d l'exception de celle programming undertaking means an und.ertaking for qui est destin6e d la pr6sentation dans un lieu public the transmission of programs, either directly by radio seulement. (b ro a d casti n g) waves or other means of telecommunication or indirectly through a distribution undertaking, for reception by the rAcepteur Appareil ou ensemble d'appareils conQu pour public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus; la r6ception de radiodiffusion ou pouvant servir d cette (broa p pa (e ntrep ri se de p rog ram m ati o n) fin. d ca sti n g re ceivi n g a ratu s) radio waves means electromagnetic waves of frequen- r4seau Est assimil6e i un r6seau toute exploitation ori le cies lower than 3 000 GHz that are propagated in space contr6le de tout ou partie des 6missions ou de la pro- grammation plusieurs without artifi cial guide; ( o nde s r a d i o 6 I e ct r i q u e s) d'une ou entreprises de radiodiffu- sion est d6l6gu6 i une autre entreprise ou personne. (net- temporary network operation means a netlvork opera- work) tion with respect to a particular program or a series of programs that extends over a period not exceeding sixty Soci6t6 La Soci6t6 Radio-Canada, vis6e d I'article 36. days. (exploitation temporaire d'un r6seau) (Corporation) Current to October 3, 2018 2 Aiour au 3 octobre 2018 Last amended on December 16,2014 Dernidre modification le 16 d6cembre 2014 \{.I':J Broadcasting Radiodiffusion PART ll Objecls and Powers ot th€ Commission in Relation to Broadcasting PARTIE ll Mission €t pouvoirs du conseil en matibre de radiodiffusion Objects Mission Sections 8-9 Articles 8-9 General Powers Pouvoirs g6n6raux Licences, etc. Cat6gories de licences I (1) Subject to this Part, the Commission may, in fur- 9 (1) Sous r6serve des autres dispositions de la pr6sente therance of its objects, partie, le Conseil peut, dans l'ex6cution de sa mission: (a) estabiish classes oflicences; a) 6tablir des cat6gories de licences; (bl issue licences for such terms not exceeding seven bl attribuer des licences pour les p6riodes maximales years and subject to such conditions related to the cir- de sept ars et aux conditions li6es i la situation du ti- cumstances of the licensee tulaire qu'il estime indiqu6es pour la mise en euwe de la politique canadienne de radiodiffusion, et, dans le (il as the Commission deems appropriate for the cas de licences attribu6es d la Soci6t6, lui permettant, implementation of the broadcasting policy set out A. son avis, d'offrir la programmation vis6e aux alin6as in subsection 3(l), and 3(1) I) et m); (ii) in the case of licences issued to the Corpora- c) modifier les conditions d'une licence soit sur de- tion, as the Commission deems consistent with the mande du titulaire, soit, plus de cinq ans aprds son at- provision, tlrough the Corporation, of the pro- tribution ou son renouvellement, de sa propre initia- gramming contemplated. by paragraphs 3(1Xl) and tive; (m); dl renouveler les licences pour les p6riodes maxi- (c) amend any condition of a licence on application of males de sept ans et aux conditions vis6es i l'alin6a b); the licensee or, where five years have expired since the issuance or renewal of the licence, on the Commis- e) suspendre ou r6voquer toute licence; sion's own mo'tion; f) obliger les titulaires de licences i obtenir l'approba- (dl issue renewals of licences for such terms not ex- tion pr6alable par le Conseil des contrats pass6s avec ceeding seven years and subject to such conditions as les exploitants de t6l6communications pour la distri- (b) public programmation comply with paragraph ; bution - directement au - de au moyen de l'6quipement de ceux-ci; (e) suspend or revoke anylicence; g) obliger les titulaires de licences d'exploitation d'en- (f) require any licensee to obtain the approval of the treprises de distribution d privil6gier la fourniture de Commission before entering into any contract with a radiodiffrrsion; telecommunications common carrier for the clistribu- tion of programming directly to the public using the h) obliger ces titulaires i offrir certains services de facilities of that common carrier; programmation selon les modalit6s qu'il pr6cise. (g) require anylicensee who is authorized to carry on a distribution undertaking to give priority to the car- riage of broadcasting; and (h) require any licensee who is authorized to carry on a distribution undertaking to carry, on such terms and Current to ocrober 3, 2018 11 Aiour au 3 octobre 2018 Last amended on December 16,2014 Dernidre modification le 16 d6cembre 2014 1V Eroadcasting Radiodiffusion PART ll Objects and Powers of the Commission in Relation to Broadcasting PARTIE ll Mission et pouvoirs du conseil en matiere ds radiodillusion General Powers Pouvoirs generaux Soctions 9-10 Adicles 9-10 conditions as the Commission deems appropriate, programming services specified by the Commission. Restrictions re conditions Restriction (21 Notwithstanding subsections (1) anil 28(3), no li- (21 Malgr6 les paragraphes (l) et 28(3), les licences des cence of a distribution undertaking may be made subject entreprises de distribution ne peuvent 6tre assujetties i to a condition that requires the licensee to substitute re- I'obligation de substituer tout mat6riel aux messages pu- placement material for commercial messages carried in a blicitaires port6s par un signal de radiodiffusion qu'elles broadcasting signal received by that licensee. regoivent. Exception Exception (31 Subsection (2) does not apply in respect of a condi- (31 Le paragraphe (2) ne s'applique pas aux conditions tion of a licence renewed after October 4, 1987 where be- des licences renouvel6es aprds le 4 octobre 1987 dans la fore tllat date the licensee was complying with such a mesure ori le titulaire s'y conformait avant cette date. condition. Exemptions Exemptions (al The Commission shall, by order, on such terms and (4) Le Conseil soustrait, par ordonnance et aux condi- conditions as it deems appropriate, exempt persons who tions qu'il juge indiqu6es, les exploitants d'entreprise de carry on broadcasting undertakings of any class specified radiodiffusion de la cat6gorie qu'il pr6cise A. toute obliga- in the order from any or all of the requirements of this tion d6coulant soit de la pr6sente partie, soit de ses rdgle- Part or of a regulation made under this Part where the ments d'application, dont il estime I'ex6cution sans Commission is satisfied that compliance with those re- cons6quence majeure sur la mise en Guwe de la poli- quirements will not contribute in a material manner to tique canadienne de rarliodiffrrsion, the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in 1991, ch. 1 1, art. 9; 1994, ch. 26, art. 10(F). bubsection 3(1). 1991, c. ll, s.9; 1994, c.26, s. 10(Fl. Current to October 3, 2018 12 A jour au 3 octobre 2018 Last amended on December 16,2014 Derniere modification le 16 ddcembre 2014