A-95-80
Attorney General for Newfoundland (Applicant)
v.
Norcable Limited (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Thurlow C.J., Pratte and Le
Dain JJ.—Halifax, November 4, 1980.
Judicial review — Application to review and set aside
decision of CRTC respecting licence application — Request by
Minister of Transportation and Communications of New-
foundland for extension of time to submit applications by
unspecified persons refused by CRTC — Failure of CRTC to
hold public hearing in Newfoundland for respondent's
application — Whether denial of principles of natural justice
— Appeal and application dismissed — It is not incumbent on
CRTC of its own motion, and without any request therefor, to
extend time for filing of interventions — Decision as to locus
of hearing left to the CRTC by subs. 19(6) of the Broadcasting
Act — Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28
— Broadcasting Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. B-11, s. 19(1) and (6).
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
I. Gray for applicant.
R. B. Holden, Q.C. for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
applicant.
Geoffrion & Prud'homme, Montreal, for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
THURLOW C.J.: We do not need to hear you
Mr. Holden. We are not persuaded that the Minis
ter of Transportation and Communications of
Newfoundland was denied a right to have his
representations considered or that the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Com
mission (CRTC) acted contrary to principles of
natural justice in dealing with the contents of the
Minister's letter of May 10, 1979. What the Min
ister requested was an extension of the time for the
submission of applications by unspecified persons
to apply for licences. In our view, he was not
denied any right to be heard on that request. The
Minister did not ask for an extension of time to
intervene and it was not incumbent on the Com
mission, of its own motion, and without any
request therefor, to extend the time for filing
interventions.
The second point raised was that the failure of
the CRTC to hold a public hearing of the respond
ent's application in Newfoundland constitutes a
denial of the principle of natural justice that the
administration of the law should be accessible to
all citizens. In our view, no principle of natural
justice is involved in the Commission's decision to
hold the public hearing at Quebec. What is
involved is whether the holding of the public hear
ing required by subsection 19(1) of the Broadcast
ing Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. B-11, at Quebec rather
than in or near the area to be served by the
licensee constitutes compliance with the require
ments of the Act. We do not think the Minister of
Transportation and Communications of New-
foundland or the intervenant, Murphy, had a right
to demand that the hearing be held in Newfound-
land or Labrador. The decision as to where the
public hearing should be held is left by subsection
19(6) of the Act to the Commission. While it
might have been more appropriate to have the
hearing somewhere in or near the towns to be
served by the licensee, on such facts as we have
before us, we cannot conclude that the authority of
the Commission to select the locus of the hearing
was improperly exercised.
Further, in our opinion, there is no merit in the
appellant's contentions that the Commission's con
clusion that, as a matter of policy, there should be
a single licensee, was based on assumptions of fact
for which there is no foundation in the record.
The appeal and the application under section 28
of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd
Supp.), c. 10, will therefore be dismissed.
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.