Standing - Tribunal Standing on JR/Appeal. Société Radio-Canada v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Société Radio-Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considered an appeal (on consent) from a CRTC ruling which found that the SRC (the French counterpart of the CBC) had used offensive language, being the racist 'N'-word. The appeal ground was "that the CRTC exceeded its jurisdiction and failed to take into account the applicable legal framework as well as the SRC’s freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Charter" [para 19].
In these quotes to court considers an interesting tribunal intervener standing issue:
 On January 6, 2023, the CRTC sought leave to intervene in order to oppose the Attorney General’s motion and defend its decision. On February 1, 2023, leave was denied on the ground that this intervention would violate the principles of impartiality and finality of administrative decisions (see the order dated February 1, 2023 dismissing the CRTC’s motion for leave to intervene, citing in support Ontario (Energy Board) v. Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2015 SCC 44,  3 S.C.R. 147, paras. 65 and 72; and Canada (Attorney General) v. Quadrini, 2010 FCA 246,  2 F.C.R. 3, para. 17).. Air Passenger Rights v. Canada (Attorney General)
 That same day, the Court, acting on its own motion with the view of obtaining a complete picture of the issues before it, appointed Professor Paul Daly as an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court”, and gave him the mandate of advancing any argument that the CRTC would have been entitled to advance in resisting the Attorney General’s motion, without regard to the jurisprudential constraints limiting its participation.
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:
 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:
 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.
 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).
 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.
 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.
 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.