Inuit Tapirisat v. Can. (A.G.) (1980), 33 N.R. 304 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Attorney General of Canada
Indexed As: Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Attorney General of Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.
October 7, 1980.
Summary:
This case arose out of the plaintiffs’ action against the Governor in Council attacking a decision of the Governor in Council in reviewing a decision of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission under s. 64(1) of the National Transportation Act. The plaintiffs were intervenants before the C.R.T.C. The plaintiffs claimed that they were denied a fair hearing before the Governor in Council and commenced an action for a declaration that the order of the Governor in Council was invalid. The Governor in Council applied to strike out the plaintiffs’ statement of claim. The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, granted the application and struck out the statement of claim. The Trial Division held that the Governor in Council in the circumstances was not under a duty to act fairly. The plaintiffs appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal.
The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the plaintiffs’ statement of claim. The judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal is reported at 24 N.R. 361. The Attorney General of Canada appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal and restored the order of the Trial Division.
Administrative Law – Topic 2274
Natural justice – The duty of fairness – Exceptions, legislative acts – Section 64 of the National Transportation Act empowered the Governor in Council to vary or rescind any order or decision of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (C.R.T.C.) – The C.R.T.C. approved certain telephone rate increases for customers in Quebec, Ontario and the Northwest Territories – Two intervenants appealed the rate increases to the Governor in Council which dismissed the appeal – The intervenants claimed that they were denied a fair hearing by the Governor in Council – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Governor in Council acting under s. 64 was not subject to the duty of fairness because the order of the Governor in Council was legislative in nature – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the Governor in Council in the circumstances was not required to hold any kind of a hearing or give reasons for its decision (see paragraph 28).
Administrative Law – Topic 2261
Natural justice – The duty of fairness – General principles – The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the duty of statutory tribunals to act fairly (see paragraphs 13 to 15).
Administrative Law – Topic 3204
Judicial review – General principles – Agencies or tribunals subject to review – Governor in Council – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that statutory power vested in the Governor in Council is subject to judicial review (see paragraph 6).
Practice – Topic 2226
Pleadings – Striking out pleadings – General principles – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a statement of claim should be struck out only where a court is satisfied that “the case is beyond doubt” (see paragraph 4).
Cases Noticed:
Ross v. Scottish Union and National Insurance Co. (1920), 47 O.L.R. 308 (App. Div.), refd to. [para. 4].
Wiseman v. Borneman, [1971] A.C. 297, refd to. [para. 13].
Nicholson v. Haldiman-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and the Attorney General of Ontario, 23 N.R. 410; [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311, refd to. [para. 13].
Pearlberg v. Varty, [1972] 1 W.L.R. 534, refd to. [para. 14].
Russell v. Duke of Norfolk, [1949] 1 All E.R. 109, refd to. [para. 14].
Selvarajan v. Race Relations Board, [1976] 1 All E.R. 12, refd to. [para. 15].
Wilson v. Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company, [1922] 1 A.C. 202, refd to. [para. 16].
Border Cities Press Club v. Attorney General of Ontario, [1955] 1 D.L.R. 404, refd to. [para. 18].
Martineau v. Matsqui Institution (No. 2), 30 N.R. 119; [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602, refd to. [para. 20].
Re Davisville Investment Co. Ltd. and City of Toronto et al. (1977), 15 O.R.(2d) 553, refd to. [para. 21].
Alliance des Professeurs Catholiques de Montréal v. Commission des Relations Ouvrie res de la Province de Québec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 140, refd to. [para. 27].
Bates v. Lord Hailsham, [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1373, refd to. [para. 29].
Statutes Noticed:
Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 1 [para. 5].
National Transportation Act, R.S.C. 1970, 2nd supp., c. 10, sect. 64 [para. 7].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Law Reform Commission of Canada (1980), Working Paper 25, Independent Administrative Agencies, page 87 [para. 28].
Counsel:
E.A. Bowie and H.L. Molot, for the appellant;
B.A. Crane, Q.C., and Andrew J. Roman, for the respondents.
This appeal was heard by LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, McINTYRE and CHOUINARD, JJ. of the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on February 12, 1980.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by ESTEY, J. on October 7, 1980.
