Mil Systems v. Canada (Minister of Public Works), docket A-710-99

Date: 20000118

Docket: A-710-99

CORAM:      STRAYER J.A.

         NOËL J.A.

         SHARLOW J.A.

BETWEEN:

MIL SYSTEMS, a Division of Davie Industries Inc.

And FLEETWAY INC.

Applicants

- and -

the MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND

GOVERNMENT SERVICES CANADA

and SIEMENS WESTINGHOUSE INC.

Respondents

- and -

CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL

Intervener

Heard at Ottawa, Ontario on Tuesday, January 18, 2000

Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario on Tuesday, January 18, 2000

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:      NOËL J.A.

Date: 20000118

Docket: A-710-99

CORAM:      STRAYER J.A.

         NOËL J.A.

         SHARLOW J.A.

BETWEEN:

MIL SYSTEMS, a Division of Davie Industries Inc.

and FLEETWAY INC.

Applicants

- and -

the MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND

GOVERNMENT SERVICES CANADA

and SIEMENS WESTINGHOUSE INC.

Respondents

- and -

CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL

Intervener

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario on

Tuesday, January 18, 2000)

NOËL J.A.

[1]      The applicants seek judicial review of an interlocutory decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal rendered on October 29, 1999, whereby it declined to issue a postponement of award order further to a complaint filed pursuant to section 30.11 and following of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.¹

[2]      It is well established that interlocutory decisions of administrative tribunals are not to be made the subject of immediate judicial review in the absence of special circumstances.² We are all of the view that no such circumstance exist here. Specifically, it seems clear to us, having regard to the manner in which the applicants framed their complaint that the Tribunal cannot be said to have exceeded or refused to exercise its jurisdiction in deciding as it did. Furthermore, that the grant of the remedy sought by the applicants may not result in a postponement of the proceedings before the Tribunal is speculative in nature and, in any event, is not in itself, a circumstance which would justify the immediate review of the decision in issue.

[3]      The application will be dismissed with costs.

"Marc Noël"

J.A.

__________________

¹ R.S. 1985, c. 47 (4^th Supp.).

² Szczecka v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 116 D.L.R. (4^th) 333 (F.C.A.); Ipsco Inc. v. Sollac, Aciers D"Unisor [1999] F.C.J. No. 910 (F.C.A.); Sears Canada Inc. v. Southwest Regional Coroner (1997), 102 O.A.C. 60 (Div. Ct.).