Date: 20120425
Docket: 12-A-9
Citation: 2012 FCA
127
Present: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
BETWEEN:
PRITCHARD
BROADCASTING INC.
Applicant
and
CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Respondent
Dealt with in writing without appearance
of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa,
Ontario,
on April 25, 2012.
REASONS
FOR ORDER BY: LÉTOURNEAU
J.A.
Date: 20120425
Docket: 12-A-9
Citation: 2012 FCA 127
Present: LÉTOURNEAU
J.A.
BETWEEN:
PRITCHARD BROADCASTING INC.
Applicant
and
CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1]
The
applicant, Pritchard Broadcasting Inc., seeks on order for an extension of time
to file an application for judicial review to challenge Broadcasting Decision
CRTC 2011-640 rendered by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC) on October 6, 2011.
[2]
The
applicant is not legally represented. The motion for an extension of time was
filed by Robert Pritchard who is the President and sole Director for the
applicant. While the technical legal terms are not used, it appears from the
affidavit of Mr. Pritchard that the applicant complains about the unfairness of
the process followed by the CRTC in rendering its decision.
[3]
In a
letter addressed to our Court on March 2, 2012, counsel for the Attorney
General of Canada objected to the applicant’s motion on the basis that the
appropriate remedy for the applicant was an appeal pursuant to subsection 31(2)
of the Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11. Counsel also raised two other
objections to the applicant’s motion, namely an improper service of the motion
by e-mail and the fact that the CRTC was improperly named as a respondent.
[4]
The
Attorney General’s letter led to the issuance of a Direction by Noël J.A. on
March 14, 2012. Following this Direction, the Attorney General filed a motion
to strike the applicant’s motion for an extension of time and to replace the
CRTC by the Attorney General as a respondent should the motion for an extension
of time be allowed to proceed.
[5]
Subsection
28(2) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c-F7 (Act) as amended
makes sections 18 to 18.5 of the Act applicable to judicial review applications
made to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 28 of the Act. Section 18.5
states that a decision of a federal board is not subject to judicial review if
an appeal is expressly provided for. This bar against judicial review applies
whether the right of appeal is limited or not by a requirement to obtain leave:
see Turmel v. C.R.T.C., 2008 FCA 405. Subsection 31(2) of the Broadcasting
Act does provide an appeal on leave to the Court of Appeal on a question of
law or a question of jurisdiction.
[6]
In Pachul
v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications, 2002 FCA 165, our
Court ruled that resort to an application for judicial review is barred when
the issues sought to be decided “are fairly described as questions of law or
jurisdiction”: ibidem, at paragraph 13. I am satisfied that, in the
present instance, the issues raised by the applicant involve questions of law
or jurisdiction which cannot be made the subject of a section 28 application.
[7]
For these
reasons, the respondent’s motion to strike will be allowed and the applicant’s
motion for an extension of time to file a section 28 application for judicial
review will be dismissed. As the respondent did not seek costs, none will be
awarded.
“Gilles
Létourneau”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: 12-A-9
STYLE OF CAUSE: PRITCHARD
BROADCASTING INC. v.
CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
MOTION
DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
DATED: April 25, 2012
WRITTEN
REPRESENTATIONS BY:
|
Robert Pritchard
|
SELF-REPRESENTED
|
|
Kelly Peck
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
|
|
|
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content