Date: 20001207
Docket: 00-A-40
| C O R A M: STRAYER J.A. |
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
B E T W E E N:
CENTRE FOR RESEARCH-ACTION ON RACE RELATIONS
Appellant
-- and --
CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Respondent
-- and --
VIDEOTRON LTEE (CANAL VOX)
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
STRAYER J.A.
Introduction
[1] Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act provides as follows:
| 31(2) An appeal lies from a decision or order of the Commission to the Federal Court of Appeal on a question of law or a question of jurisdiction if leave therefor is obtained from that Court on application made within one month after the making of the decision or order sought to be appealed from or within such further time as that Court under special circumstances allows. |
The only matter requiring decision on this application for leave to appeal is whether the Canadian Radio-Television Commission ("CRTC") has rendered a "decision or order" which is capable of appeal. The respondent Vidéotron Ltée ("Vidéotron") operates a community channel, Canal Vox, in Montreal. There was broadcast on this channel on September 16, 1999 a 30 minute episode of Place publique involving interviews on the street posing questions as to whether, in the opinion of the interviewee, immigrants sufficiently integrated themselves into the "société québécoise francophone".
[2] On November 2, 1999 the Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations ("CRAAR") filed a complaint with the CRTC alleging that this programme breached provisions of the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters Code of Ethics, and the Cable Television Community Channel Standards, to the extent that those instruments prohibit discriminatory or abusive comment in television broadcasting.
[3] On August 9, 2000 a letter was sent to the CRAAR by Jean-Pierre Blais, Executive Director, Broadcasting at the CRTC saying that they had examined the complaint and had concluded that the programme in question did not constitute a violation of the law or regulations relevant to these matters. In subsequent communications between counsel for the CRARR and the CRTC, the CRARR counsel insisted on treating this letter as a decision of the CRTC. It was indicated to him on more than one occasion in writing that the August 9, 2000 letter was not a decision of the Commission, no member of the Commission had indeed considered the matter, and that the letter represented the views of certain officers of the Commission. Counsel for the CRARR was advised that if his organization was not satisfied with this result it could request the Commission itself to consider the complaint. He was advised that in such cases the CRTC would consider all material on file, the CRARR could make further representations, Vidéotron would have the opportunity to respond to those representations, and then the Commission might pose questions in writing to either party. He was asked if he had any concerns about proceeding in this way.
[4] Instead counsel for the CRARR insisted that a decision had been made, that what was then being suggested was an unauthorized "review" of that decision, that such a "review" did not adequately guarantee fairness, and that he would instead pursue a leave to appeal application which he had filed in this Court on September 8, 2000.
[5] The respondent Vidéotron takes the position that no decision has been made by the CRTC and that until such a decision is made there can be no leave obtained from this Court for an appeal under subsection 31(2) of the Broadcasting Act.
[6] I agree with counsel for the respondent. It is clear from both subsection 31(2) of the Broadcasting Act and paragraph 28(1)(c) of the Federal Court Act that the jurisdiction of this Court lies in respect of decisions of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission. By subsection 3(1) of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission Act it is equally apparent that the "Commission" consists of the full-time and part-time members thereof appointed by the Governor in Council. From the affidavit of Mr. Blais it is obvious that his letter of August 9, 2000 was not a "decision" of the "Commission" and that the CRARR was so informed.
[7] Therefore leave must be refused.
[8] One of the complaints of counsel for the CRARR is that the letter of August 9 did not itself explain the right of a complainant to ask that the complaint be put before the Commission. I agree that it would be better if this were brought to the attention of a complainant when staff send a letter indicating that they do not think a complaint has been made out. However in this case this avenue was subsequently explained several times to counsel for CRARR and the process was described to him, a process which was certainly not patently unfair.
[9] For these reasons the application for leave should be dismissed with costs.
(s) "B.L. Strayer"
J.A.
I agree
Gilles Létourneau J.A.
I agree
Marshall Rothstein J.A.