Judicial review of Governor in Council telecom decision struck due to adequate alternative remedies.
In an application for judicial review of a Governor in Council decision refusing to vary a CRTC telecommunications policy, TELUS sought to be added as a respondent and SaskTel sought to be added as a respondent or intervenor.
The Attorney General moved to strike the application.
The Court granted TELUS's motion as it was directly affected by the relief sought, but dismissed SaskTel's motion because its interests aligned with the applicants.
The Court struck the application for judicial review on the basis that the applicants had adequate alternative remedies via an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and a new petition to the Governor in Council regarding a subsequent CRTC review and vary decision.
Action challenging vaccine policy struck due to explicit ouster of jurisdiction by FPSLRA grievance process.
The defendant moved to strike an action brought by federal public servants challenging the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, arguing the action was barred by section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (FPSLRA).
The Court found it plain and obvious that the plaintiffs had access to the grievance process under the FPSLRA and that this process ousted the Court's jurisdiction.
The motion to strike was granted and the action was dismissed.
Motion to strike judicial review of suspended Covid-19 vaccination mandate granted for mootness and prematurity.
The respondent moved to strike the applicants' judicial review application concerning the federal public service Covid-19 vaccination mandate on the grounds of mootness and prematurity.
The Federal Court granted the motion, finding that the suspension of the policy eliminated any live controversy, rendering the matter moot.
Furthermore, the Court held that the application was premature because the applicants had an adequate alternative remedy through the individual grievance process under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act.
