On a preliminary jurisdiction motion, the appellant challenged whether the Federal Court could hear a declaration that a municipal property-standards by-law was constitutionally inapplicable or inoperative against a federally incorporated bridge undertaking.
The majority held that the claim was grounded in constitutional law, not relief sought under a federal statute within s. 23(c) of the Federal Courts Act, and therefore the first branch of the ITO test was not met.
The application was accordingly outside the Federal Court’s statutory jurisdiction and had to be struck.
Dissenting judges would have found jurisdiction and addressed forum restraint through discretionary stay principles.
