Torys

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.

The Ontario Energy Board appealed a decision that had required it to apply a mandatory prudence framework when assessing Ontario Power Generation compensation costs in rate-setting.

The majority held tribunal participation in defending its own decision was proper in this regulatory context and found no impermissible bootstrapping on appeal.

The Court held the governing statute did not require a single prudence methodology and permitted the Board to use a mixed approach for costs that were partly committed and partly subject to managerial discretion.

The Board’s disallowance of $145 million in compensation costs was found reasonable, and its original decision was reinstated.