74-A-300
The Center for Public Interest Law (Petitioner)
v.
The Canadian Transport Commission (Respond-
ent)
and
Bell Canada (Mise en cause)
Court of Appeal, Urie, Addy and Decary JJ.—
Montreal, February 22, 1974.
Appeals—Whether determination not to hold a special
preliminary hearing to determine a question of law is a
"decision" from which an appeal may be taken—National
Transportation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-17, Canadian Trans
port Commission General Rule 510.
Under Rule 510 of the Canadian Transport Commission
General Rules, if it appears to the Commission at any time
that there is a question of law which it would be convenient
to have decided before proceeding further with the case, it
may direct such question to be raised either by special case
or such other manner as it may deem expedient and it may
stay proceedings in whole or in part until the question is
determined. The Commission was under no legal obligation
to institute a special preliminary hearing to determine
whether the new amended application of Bell Canada for
revision of telephone tariff of rates was in fact an appeal
from the Committee's decision six months earlier, as a
matter of law. The Committee was exercising a discretion as
to the conduct of its own hearing and this is not a "decision"
from which an appeal may be taken within the meaning of
section 64(2) of the National Transportation Act, R.S.C.
1970, c. N-17.
APPLICATION for leave to appeal.
COUNSEL:
Ronald I. Cohen and Pamela Sigurdson for
petitioner.
W. G. St. John for respondent.
E. Saunders, Q.C., and R. O'Brien, Q.C.,
for mise en cause.
SOLICITORS:
Sigurdson and Cohen, Montreal, for
petitioner.
W. G. St. John, Ottawa, for respondent.
G. Houle, Montreal, for mise en cause.
ADDY J.—In this application for leave to
appeal under section 64(2) of the National
Transportation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-17, I am
of the view that the Committee was exercising a
discretion as to procedure and more specifical
ly, as to the conduct of its own hearing, which it
was fully entitled to exercise under Rule 510 of
the Canadian Transportation Commission Gen
eral Rules. It was under no legal obligation to
institute a special preliminary hearing to deter
mine the question as to whether the New
Amended Application "B" was in fact an appeal
from the Committee's decision of the 19th May,
1972, as a matter of law.
The decision not to hold a preliminary hearing
on this question was one which involved a
matter of procedure and is one of the incidental
rulings in respect of one of the main matters for
which the Telecommunication Committee was
created, namely, the review of rates and tariffs.
In my view, it is not a "decision" within the
meaning of section 64(2) in respect of which
this Court has jurisdiction to entertain an
appeal.
Finally, as to the merits, the applicant has
failed to indicate any legal basis on which his
argument as to lack of jurisdiction of the Com
mittee might possibly be sustained on appeal.
The application for leave should, therefore, in
my view, be dismissed.
* * *
URIE J. concurred.
* * *
DECARY J.—I concur with the result of the
application for leave to appeal made under the
provisions of section 64 of the National Trans
portation Act because this application for leave
to appeal is premature up to the time the
Canadian Transportation Commission shall have
rendered its decision on the rates and tariffs
applied for by Bell Canada. My remarks are no
reflection on the merits of the application.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.