|
Standing - Tribunal Standing on JR/Appeal. Air Passenger Rights v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Air Passenger Rights v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2021) the Federal Court of Appeal held that a judicial review ruling can result in orders binding on a tribunal even though the AG only is named as a party:[12] Contrary to what the applicant asserts, it is not necessary to name the Agency to ensure that any order is effective. Judicial review applications proceed regularly before this Court and the Federal Court, with the named respondent being the Attorney General, and the Courts’ judgments are effective against the tribunals whose decisions are being reviewed: see for example Adebogun v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 242, 2017 CarswellNat 7140 at paras 9, 13-14, Canada (Attorney General) v. Galderma Canada Inc., 2019 FCA 196, 2019 CarswellNat 3012 at paras 1-2, 8, 24, 75, Bissessar v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 305, 2019 CarswellNat 7639 at paras 20-24, 29-30. . Fratarcangeli v. North Blenheim Mutual Insurance Company
In Fratarcangeli v. North Blenheim Mutual Insurance Company (Div Ct, 2020) the Divisional Court held that the License Appeal Tribunal could (and should) be a party on an appeal:[1] These three matters were scheduled to be heard consecutively: the first two (North Blenheim and Royal & Sun Alliance) on December 8, 2020 and the third (Sheway) on December 9, 2020.
[2] They raise the same preliminary issue being whether s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act (S.O. 1999, c. 12 Sched. G) (the “Act”) applies such that the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) has the jurisdiction to extend the two-year time limit set to bring an application to the LAT to resolve a dispute in respect of the insured person’s entitlement to, or the amount of, statutory benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (O. Reg. 34/10).
[3] At the outset of the proceeding counsel were asked and advised the Court that the LAT had indicated that it did not intend to appear and make representations at the hearing of these proceedings.
[4] The LAT has made conflicting decisions regarding the issue of its jurisdiction. In some cases, it has assumed jurisdiction (the issue was not raised). In the Sheway case, it found it did not have the jurisdiction to extend the time limit of concern. Jurisdiction is one area where administrative tribunals are, generally, permitted to appear in appeals taken from their decisions. They have a particular understanding of their purpose and responsibilities, the parameters within which they function and the legislation, regulations and rules that govern their actions.
[5] We think it important that the LAT appear to assist the Court in this matter. It would be unfortunate if the Court were to make a decision which, in the absence of this assistance, through its lack of appreciation of the circumstances and the LAT’s understanding of the applicable legislation, regulations and rules, would unnecessarily cause difficulties that might otherwise be avoided.
|
