Thomas Sloan Heintzman

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.

The CRTC appealed a Federal Court of Appeal decision that set aside its renewal of CTV's broadcasting licence.

The CRTC had imposed a condition requiring CTV to broadcast a specified number of hours of original new Canadian drama.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that the CRTC had jurisdiction to impose the condition but breached natural justice by not giving adequate notice of the specific condition.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the CRTC's appeal, holding that the CRTC had the jurisdiction to impose the condition under s. 17(1) of the Broadcasting Act and that there was no breach of natural justice, as CTV had sufficient notice that Canadian drama offerings would be discussed.

The Court also dismissed CTV's cross-appeal regarding the composition of the hearing panel.

The appellant appealed from a judgment dismissing appeals from orders prohibiting the prosecution of the respondents for killing seals on a Sunday, contrary to section 15 of the pre-Confederation Newfoundland Seal Fishery Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 15 fell within the exclusive legislative competence of the federal Parliament under its jurisdiction over Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.

The Court found that federal Seal Protection Regulations, which did not prohibit Sunday hunting, altered the pre-Confederation law and rendered section 15 ineffective.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding its business tax assessment.

The issue was whether leasing photocopiers constituted the sale of a 'service' under s. 7(1)(e) of the Ontario Assessment Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the dissenting reasons in the Court of Appeal, holding that 'services' must bear its ordinary meaning as the product of the work of the person supplying it.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was found assessable under the catch-all provision in s. 7(1)(j) rather than s. 7(1)(e).