A-89-76
In re the Broadcasting Act, and in re Capital
Cable Co-operative and the Canadian Radio-
Television Commission and Victoria Cablevision
Limited
Court of Appeal, Pratte, Heald and Ryan JJ.—
Ottawa, April 12, 1976.
Broadcasting—Prerogative writs—Application for man-
damus to compel CRTC to hear applicant's application for a
cable television licence—Whether CRTC practice of hearing
licence renewal application first and other applicants only if
renewal refused is contrary to law and natural justice—
Broadcasting Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. B-11, ss. 3, 15, 17, 19, 21—
CRTC Rules of Procedure 3, 4, 13.
The licence of Victoria Cablevision was due to expire March
31, 1976, and applicant, Capital Cable Co-operative, applied
for a licence to serve the same area. The CRTC advised that it
is not its practice to accept applications where a licence has
been granted and is about to expire, but to hold a public
hearing to determine whether the licence should be renewed. If
it should decide against renewal, it would then call for other
applications. Applicants meanwhile may intervene at the
renewal hearing. Applicant sought mandamus to compel the
CRTC to hear its application, alleging that this practice was
contrary to law and natural justice. The Trial Division granted
the application, and ordered the Commission to hear Capital's
application before renewing Victoria's licence, holding that the
—GRTC-had-a-duty-to-hear-the-applicant.
Held, dismissing the application, the decision of the Trial
Division is set aside. The Court is not persuaded that, in the
circumstances of this case, the Commission had a duty to hear
respondent's application before disposing of appellant's applica
tion for licence renewal.
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
C. Thomson for the CRTC.
D. Lisson for Capital Cable Co-operative.
A. McEachern for Victoria Cablevision
Limited.
SOLICITORS:
Campbell, Godfrey & Lewtas, Toronto, for
the CRTC.
Lisson, McConnan, Bion & O'Connor, Vic-
toria, for Capital Cable Co-operative.
Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver, for Vic-
toria Cablevision Limited.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
PRATTE J.: We do not need to hear you Mr.
Thomson and Mr. McEachern.
We have not been persuaded by Mr. Lisson that,
in the circumstances of this case, the CRTC had
the legal duty to hear the respondent's application
for a licence before disposing of the appellant's
application for renewal of its own licence.
The judgment of the Trial Division' will there
fore be set aside and the respondent's application
will be dismissed without costs.
Supra page 627.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.