Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

Canada (Dir. of Investigation) v. N.B. Telephone

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Board correctly refused the Director permission to intervene because the Director lacked statutory authority to intervene in provincial regulatory proceedings; an administrative tribunal cannot cure that deficiency by granting permission where the statute does not authorize such intervention.

Court disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal set aside; judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench and the decision of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Set aside judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal
  • Restore judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench and decision of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities
  • Costs to the appellant against the Director in this Court and in the Court of Appeal

02

Material facts

Parties

New Brunswick Telephone Company, Limited

Appellant Counsel: M. Robert Jette; Solicitors: Clark, Drummie & Company, Saint John

Lawson A. W. Hunter (Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act)

Respondent (applicant) Counsel: W. J. Miller; Bruce Russell; Solicitor: The Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa

Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities for the Province of New Brunswick

Respondent Counsel: Department of Justice, Fredericton

Amounts and remedies

  • File Number: 18,890

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Judicial Review / Administrative Law Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (judgment Under Review Affirmed by Court of Appeal)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Director argued that a public officer created by statute may, with the permission of the tribunal, intervene in proceedings in his official capacity to make representations and adduce evidence concerning the public policy for which he is responsible, and that the Director had statutory authority under the Combines Investigation Act to intervene in the Board proceedings to address competition implications.
Respondent
The respondents (the Telephone Company and the Board) argued that the Director lacked statutory authority or capacity to intervene in the provincial regulatory proceedings and that the Board properly refused permission to intervene because intervention in an official capacity requires express or implied statutory authority.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Canada (Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act) v. Newfoundland Telephone Co., [1987] 2 S.C.R. 466; applied in this judgment

    A public officer created by statute does not have an inherent right to intervene in administrative tribunal proceedings in an official capacity absent statutory authority; permission by the tribunal cannot supply statutory authority where none exists.

  2. 02

    Principles of administrative law and statutory interpretation applied by the Court

    Administrative tribunals must act within the limits of their statutory powers and cannot validly permit interventions that exceed those limits or that are not authorized by statute.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Board correctly refused the Director permission to intervene because the Director lacked statutory authority to intervene in provincial regulatory proceedings; an administrative tribunal cannot cure that deficiency by granting permission where the statute does not authorize such intervention.

Obiter and limits

  • This decision follows and relies on the concurrently rendered Newfoundland Telephone Co. decision on the same issues.
  • Costs were awarded to the appellant against the Director in this Court and in the Court of Appeal.

Court disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal set aside; judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench and the decision of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities restored.

  • Appeal allowed
  • Set aside judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal
  • Restore judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench and decision of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities
  • Costs to the appellant against the Director in this Court and in the Court of Appeal

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of Canada · 19 November 1987

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Supreme Court of Canada

Judgment· 19 November 1987

[1987] 2 SCR 485

Canada (Dir. of Investigation) v. N.B. Telephone Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1987-11-19 Report [1987] 2 SCR 485 Case number 18890 Judges Beetz, Jean; McIntyre, William Rogers; Lamer, Antonio; Wilson, Bertha; Le Dain, Gerald Eric On appeal from New Brunswick Subjects Administrative law Notes SCC Case Information: 18890 Decision Content Canada (Dir. of Investigation) v. N.B. Telephone, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 485 New Brunswick Telephone Company, Limited Appellant (Respondent) v. Lawson A. W. Hunter Respondent (Applicant) and Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities for the Province of New Brunswick (Respondent) indexed as: canada (director of investigation and research under the combines investigation act) v. new brunswick telephone co. File No.: 18890. 1986: May 29; 1987: November 19. Present: Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for new brunswick Administrative law ‑‑ Intervention in proceedings before administrative tribunal ‑‑ Whether public officer whose office is created by statute requires statutory authority to intervene before administrative tribunal with permission of tribunal ‑‑ Authority of tribunal to permit intervention ‑‑ Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C‑23. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench which dismissed an application for judicial

review of the decision of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities for New Brunswick refusing the Director of Investigation and Research permission to intervene in the application of the New Brunswick Telephone Co. for confirmation of its interpretation of its general tariff on the ground that the Director lacked statutory authority or capacity to intervene. This appeal raised the following questions: (a) whether a public officer whose office has been created by statute requires statutory authority, express or implied, to intervene in his official capacity in proceedings before an administrative tribunal, with the permission of the tribunal, to make representations and adduce evidence with respect to the public policy for which he is responsible; (b) if so, whether an administrative tribunal may validly permit such intervention despite the lack of such authority; and (c) if not, whether the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C‑23, had statutory authority to intervene in proceedings before a provincial regulatory tribunal, with the permission of the tribunal, to make representations and adduce evidence with respect to the competition implications of an application by a provincial public utility for confirmation of its interpretation of its general tariff. Held: The appeal should be allowed. The Board did not err in refusing the Director permission to intervene for the reasons given in Canada (Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act) v. Newfoundland Telephone Co., [1987] 2 S.C.R.

466. Cases Cited Followed: Canada (Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act) v. Newfoundland Telephone Co., [1987] 2 S.C.R.

466. Statutes and Regulations Cited Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C‑23. APPEAL from a judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (1984), 53 N.B.R. (2d) 343, 8 D.L.R. (4th) 454, 138 A.P.R. 343, allowing an appeal from a judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench (1984), 52 N.B.R. (2d) 173, 137 A.P.R. 173, dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities for New Brunswick refusing the Director permission to intervene. Appeal allowed. M. Robert Jette, for the appellant. W. J. Miller and Bruce Russell, for the respondent Lawson A. W. Hunter. The judgment of the Court was delivered by 1. Le Dain J.‑‑This appeal raises the following questions: (a) whether a public officer whose office has been created by statute requires statutory authority, express or implied, to intervene in his official capacity in proceedings before an administrative tribunal, with the permission of the tribunal, to make representations and adduce evidence with respect to the public policy for which he is responsible; (b) if so, whether an administrative tribunal may validly permit such intervention despite the lack of such authority; and (c) if not, whether the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C‑23, as amended by S.C. 1974‑75‑76, c. 76, had statutory authority to

intervene in proceedings before a provincial regulatory tribunal, with the permission of the tribunal, to make representations and adduce evidence with respect to the competition implications of an application by a provincial public utility for confirmation of its view that it was not required by its general tariff to impose standard service charges on the transfer of customers from one service to another pursuant to the company's acquisition of the assets of certain businesses.

2. The appeal is by leave of this Court from the judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal on April 6, 1984 (reported as Re Hunter and Board of Public Utilities of New Brunswick (1984), 8 D.L.R. (4th) 454), allowing an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench on November 18, 1983, which dismissed an application for judicial review of the decision of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities for New Brunswick on March 2, 1983 refusing the Director permission to intervene in the application of the New Brunswick Telephone Company, Limited for confirmation of its interpretation of its general tariff, as indicated above, on the ground that the Director lacked statutory authority or capacity to intervene.

3. This appeal was heard at the same time as the appeal in Canada (Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act) v. Newfoundland Telephone Co. ("the Newfoundland Telephone Co. appeal"), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 466, in which judgment on the same issues has been rendered today. For the reasons given in the Newfoundland Telephone Co. appeal, in which reference is made to the decision of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities for New Brunswick, the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench and the judgment of the Court of Appeal, I conclude that the Board did not err in refusing the Director permission to intervene. I would accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and restore the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench and the decision of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities, with costs to the appellant against the Director in this Court and in the Court of Appeal. Appeal allowed with costs. Solicitors for the appellant: Clark, Drummie & Company, Saint John. Solicitor for the respondent Lawson A. W. Hunter: The Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa. Solicitor for the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities for the Province of New Brunswick: The Department of Justice, Fredericton.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Canada (Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act) v. Newfoundland Telephone Co., [1987] 2 S.C.R. 466

Case cited

Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-23

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.