Susan L. Gratton

The CRTC ordered British Columbia Telephone Company (BC Tel) to permit cable companies to install their own cables on BC Tel's support structures.

However, a labour arbitration board had previously ruled that allowing cable companies to perform this work violated BC Tel's collective agreement with the Telecommunications Workers Union.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the CRTC decision, finding it exceeded its jurisdiction by requiring BC Tel to violate its collective agreement.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the CRTC had jurisdiction to make the order and was entitled to curial deference.

The Court established that where two administrative tribunals issue operationally conflicting decisions, the courts must determine which takes precedence based on legislative intent.

In this case, the CRTC's broad policy-making decision took precedence over the labour arbitration board's interpretation of a private collective agreement.

The appellant union sought judicial review of a CRTC decision regarding who could perform installation work on a telephone company's support structures, arguing it was denied natural justice because it did not receive notice of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the union's interest in the telecommunications policy decision was purely indirect and did not trigger the audi alteram partem rule.

Furthermore, the Court found that the governing statute placed the obligation to notify employees on the employer, not the CRTC, and that the CRTC did not err by failing to defer to labour arbitration board decisions.