Pachul v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission

Pachul v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-04-30 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 165 File numbers A-42-02 Notes Digest Decision Content Date: 20020430 Docket: A-42-02 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 165 Present: STRAYER J.A. EVANS J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: JAN PACHUL Applicant and CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Respondent Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties. Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario on April 30, 2002. REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: STRAYER J.A. EVANS J.A. Date: 20020430 Docket: A-42-02 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 165 Present: STRAYER J.A. EVANS J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: JAN PACHUL Applicant and CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER SHARLOW J.A. [1] The respondent Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has filed a notice of motion seeking an order dismissing this application for judicial review on the basis that judicial review is not open to the applicant. The CRTC relies on subsection 31(2) of theBroadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, and sections 28(2) and 18.5 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. F-7. The applicant opposes the motion. I note Mr. Pachul's request to have this matter heard orally. However, I am not persuaded that an oral hearing is necessary. [2] The essential facts are not disputed. Mr. Pachul has attempted in the past to obtain a licence to operate a low-power community oriented television station on UHF Channel 15 to serve an area of Toronto. By Decision CRTC 2000-340 dated August 21, 2000, the CRTC denied his application. The CRTC subsequently received information that led them to believe that Mr. Pachul was operating a television station in Toronto without a licence. On September 19, 2001, the CRTC conducted a hearing into the matter. [3] That hearing culminated on October 26, 2001 in a mandatory order made by the CRTC under subsection 12(2) of the Broadcasting Act. The order is found in CRTC Public Notice 2001-109. It states that the CRTC found that Mr. Jan Pachul has been carrying on a broadcasting undertaking without a licence or exemption from the CRTC, and orders him to cease and desist doing so except in compliance with the Broadcasting Act. The order was stated to take effect on November 15, 2001. [4] Section 12 of the Broadcasting Act reads as follows: 12. (1) Where it appears to the Commission that 12. (1) Le Conseil peut connaître de toute question pour laquelle il estime_: (a) any person has failed to do any act or thing that the person is required to do pursuant to this Part or to any regulation, licence, decision or order made or issued by the Commission under this Part, or has done or is doing any act or thing in contravention of this Part or of any such regulation, licence, decision or order, or a) soit qu'il y a eu ou aura manquement -- par omission ou commission -- aux termes d'une licence, à la présente partie ou aux ordonnances, décisions ou règlements pris par lui en application de celle-ci; (b) the circumstances may require the Commission to make any decision or order or to give any approval that it is authorized to make or give under this Part or under any regulation or order made under this Part, b) soit qu'il peut avoir à rendre une décision ou ordonnance ou à donner une permission, sanction ou approbation dans le cadre de la présente partie ou de ses textes d'application. the Commission may inquire into, hear and determine the matter. (2) The Commission may, by order, require any person to do, forthwith or within or at any time and in any manner specified by the Commission, any act or thing that the person is or may be required to do pursuant to this Part or to any regulation, licence, decision or order made or issued by the Commission under this Part and may, by order, forbid the doing or continuing of any act or thing that is contrary to this Part or to any such regulation, licence, decision or order. (2) Le Conseil peut, par ordonnance, soit imposer l'exécution, dans le délai et selon les modalités qu'il détermine, des obligations découlant de la présente partie ou des ordonnances, décisions ou règlements pris par lui ou des licences attribuées par lui en application de celle-ci, soit interdire ou faire cesser quoi que ce soit qui y contrevient. (3) Where an inquiry under subsection (1) is heard by a panel established under subsection 20(1) and the panel issues an order pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, any person who is affected by the order may, within thirty days after the making thereof, apply to the Commission to reconsider any decision or finding made by the panel, and the Commission may rescind or vary any order or decision made by the panel or may re-hear any matter before deciding it. (3) Toute personne touchée par l'ordonnance d'un comité chargé, en application de l'article 20, d'entendre et de décider d'une question visée au paragraphe (1) peut, dans les trente jours suivant l'ordonnance, demander au Conseil de réexaminer la décision ou les conclusions du comité, lesquelles peuvent être annulées ou modifiées par le Conseil, après ou sans nouvelle audition. [5] On November 2, 2001, the order was filed with the Federal Court of Canada (Court File No. T-1992-01) pursuant to section 13 of the Broadcasting Act, which reads as follows: 13. (1) Any order made under subsection 12(2) may be made an order of the Federal Court or of any superior court of a province and is enforceable in the same manner as an order of the court. 13. (1) Les ordonnances du Conseil visées au paragraphe 12(2) peuvent être assimilées à des ordonnances de la Cour fédérale ou d'une cour supérieure d'une province; le cas échéant, leur exécution s'effectue selon les mêmes modalités. (2) To make an order under subsection 12(2) an order of a court, the usual practice and procedure of the court in such matters may be followed or, in lieu thereof, the Commission may file with the registrar of the court a certified copy of the order, and thereupon the order becomes an order of the court. (2) L'assimilation peut se faire soit conformément aux règles de pratique et de procédure de la cour applicables en l'occurrence, soit par dépôt, par le Conseil, d'une copie de l'ordonnance certifiée conforme auprès du greffier de la cour. Dans ce dernier cas, l'assimilation est effectuée au moment du dépôt. (3) Where an order that has been made an order of a court is rescinded or varied by a subsequent order of the Commission, the order of the court shall be deemed to have been cancelled and the subsequent order may, in the same manner, be made an order of the court. (3) Les ordonnances du Conseil qui annulent ou modifient celles déjà assimilées à des ordonnances d'une cour sont réputées annuler celles-ci et peuvent, selon les mêmes modalités, faire l'objet d'une assimilation. [6] On November 26, 2001, Mr. Pachul sent a notice to the CRTC indicating that he was appealing the mandatory order. This was taken as an application for reconsideration under subsection 12(3) of the Broadcasting Act. On December 20, 2001, the CRTC rejected the application. That decision is found in Decision CRTC 2001-778. [7] On January 21, 2002, Mr. Pachul filed a notice of application for judicial review of Decision CRTC 2001-778. He seeks to have the decision quashed on a number of grounds. Broadly speaking, Mr. Pachul alleges that the order is beyond the jurisdiction of the CRTC, that a number of errors were made in the hearing process and that the CRTC has been negligent and incompetent in regulating low-power television. He also alleges the existence of a reasonable apprehension of bias. It is that application that the CRTC now seeks to have dismissed. [8] In my view, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear Mr. Pachul's application for judicial review of Decision CRTC 2001-778. It follows that this motion for dismissal should be granted. [9] The Federal Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction except that assigned by statute. In the context of this case, the search for jurisdiction starts with paragraph 28(1)(c) of the Federal Court Act, which reads as follows: 28. (1) The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for judicial review made in respect of any of the following federal boards, commissions or other tribunals: [...] (c) the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission established by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act; 28. (1) La Cour d'appel a compétence pour connaître des demandes de contrôle judiciaire visant les offices fédéraux suivants_: [...] c) le Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes constitué par la Loi sur le Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes; [10] Paragraph 28(1)(c) must be considered with subsection 28(2) of the Federal Court Act, which reads as follows: 28. (2) Sections 18 to 18.5, except subsection 18.4(2), apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under subsection (1) and, where they so apply, a reference to the Trial Division shall be read as a reference to the Court of Appeal. 28. (2) Les articles 18 à 18.5 s'appliquent, exception faite du paragraphe 18.4(2) et compte tenu des adaptations de circonstance, à la Cour d'appel comme si elle y était mentionnée lorsqu'elle est saisie en vertu du paragraphe (1) d'une demande de contrôle judiciaire. [11] Section 18.5 reads as follows: 18.5 Notwithstanding sections 18 and 18.1, where provision is expressly made by an Act of Parliament for an appeal as such to the Court, to the Supreme Court of Canada, to the Court Martial Appeal Court, to the Tax Court of Canada, to the Governor in Council or to the Treasury Board from a decision or order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal made by or in the course of proceedings before that board, commission or tribunal, that decision or order is not, to the extent that it may be so appealed, subject to review or to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with, except in accordance with that Act. 18.5 Par dérogation aux articles 18 et 18.1, lorsqu'une loi fédérale prévoit expressément qu'il peut être interjeté appel, devant la Cour fédérale, la Cour suprême du Canada, la Cour d'appel de la cour martiale, la Cour canadienne de l'impôt, le gouverneur en conseil ou le Conseil du Trésor, d'une décision ou d'une ordonnance d'un office fédéral, rendue à tout stade des procédures, cette décision ou cette ordonnance ne peut, dans la mesure où elle est susceptible d'un tel appel, faire l'objet de contrôle, de restriction, de prohibition, d'évocation, d'annulation ni d'aucune autre intervention, sauf en conformité avec cette loi. [12] Has provision been made in some other statute for an appeal of Decision CRTC 2001-778? The position of the CRTC is that such a provision is found in section 31 of the Broadcasting Act, which reads as follows: 31. (1) Except as provided in this Part, every decision and order of the Commission is final and conclusive. 31. (1) Sauf exceptions prévues par la présente partie, les décisions et ordonnances du Conseil sont définitives et sans appel. (2) An appeal lies from a decision or order of the Commission to the Federal Court of Appeal on a question of law or a question of jurisdiction if leave therefor is obtained from that Court on application made within one month after the making of the decision or order sought to be appealed from or within such further time as that Court under special circumstances allows. (2) Les décisions et ordonnances du Conseil sont susceptibles d'appel, sur une question de droit ou de compétence, devant la Cour d'appel fédérale. L'exercice de cet appel est toutefois subordonné à l'autorisation de la cour, la demande en ce sens devant être présentée dans le mois qui suit la prise de la décision ou ordonnance attaquée ou dans le délai supplémentaire accordé par la cour dans des circonstances particulières. (3) No appeal lies after leave therefor has been obtained under subsection (2) unless it is entered in the Federal Court of Appeal within sixty days after the making of the order granting leave to appeal. (3) L'appel doit être interjeté dans les soixante jours suivant l'autorisation. (4) Any document issued by the Commission in the form of a decision or order shall, if it relates to the issue, amendment, renewal, revocation or suspension of a licence, be deemed for the purposes of this section to be a decision or order of the Commission. (4) Les documents émanant du Conseil sous forme de décision ou d'ordonnance, s'ils concernent l'attribution, la modification, le renouvellement, l'annulation, ou la suspension d'une licence, sont censés être, pour l'application du présent article, des décisions ou ordonnances du Conseil. [13] The issues that Mr. Pachul seeks to raise in his application for judicial review of Decision CRTC 2001-778 are fairly described as questions of law or jurisdiction. In this regard the issues are analogous to those considered in Canadian Broadcasting League v. CRTC (No. 1), [1980] 1 F.C. 393 (C.A.), in which judicial review was sought on the basis of jurisdictional errors and alleged breaches of natural justice. In that case, the Court held that such grounds of attack may be raised by way of an appeal pursuant to the statutory predecessor of section 31 of the Broadcasting Act, and therefore they could not be the subject of an application for judicial review. [14] I refer also to Cathay International Television Inc. v. CRTC (1987), 80 N.R. 118 (C.A.), in which Stone J.A., speaking for the Court, said this at page 125 (paragraph 20): I come, finally, to what I regard as the pivotal question in this dispute. By subsection 26(1) of the Broadcasting Act, rights of appeal are restricted to "a question of law or a question of jurisdiction". Parliament, by adopting this language, appears to have intended that relief against a decision or order of the Respondent is to be available to the extent and in the manner provided in that subsection and that otherwise, as is stated in section 25 of that statute, the decision or order is to be "final and conclusive". No amount of artful drafting can convert a question that is appealable under the Broadcasting Act to one that is reviewable under section 28 of the Federal Court Act. In my view, the complaints asserted in paragraph (c) of the section 28 application raise questions of law or of jurisdiction and, hence, cannot be made the subject of a section 28 application. The CRTC decision in that case had been challenged on a number of grounds, including what were alleged to be erroneous findings of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner. [15] Mr. Pachul argues that Decision CRTC 2001-778 is not within the scope of subsection 31(2) of the Broadcasting Act because it is not a decision that, in the words of subsection 31(4), "relates to the issue, amendment, renewal, revocation or suspension of a licence". [16] In my view, Mr. Pachul is misreading subsection 31(4). Subsection 31(4) simply ensures that certain documents issued by the CRTC are deemed to be decisions or orders. It is not clear whether subsection 31(4) was enacted for greater certainty or is intended to expand the scope of the phrase "decision or order", but that is not a question that arises in this case. The CRTC is empowered to render decisions or orders other than licensing decisions. [17] I conclude that Decision CRTC 2001-778 is subject to appeal under section 31 and hence cannot be the subject of an application for judicial review on the grounds raised by Mr. Pachul. It is irrelevant that such an appeal is limited by the requirement to obtain leave: Canadian Broadcasting League, Cathay International Television (supra). [18] It follows that I would dismiss this application for judicial review. As the CRTC has not sought costs, I would award none. J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-42- 02 STYLE OF CAUSE: Jan Pachul v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties. Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario on April 30, 2002. REASONS FOR ORDER: SHARLOW J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: STRAYER J.A. EVANS J.A. DATED: April 30, 2002 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Mr. Jan Pachul ( on his own behalf)FOR THE APPLICANT Ms. Shelly C. Quinn FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Jan Pachul ( on his own behalf)FOR THE APPELLANT Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT