Federal Court


Federal Court did not have jurisdiction to grant interlocutory relief

Application was filed with National Energy Board pursuant to s. 52 of National Energy Board Act (Can.), to obtain certificate of public convenience and necessity for constructing and operating 4,500 km long pipeline system between Alberta and New Brunswick. More than 1,500 km of new pipeline would be constructed. Project was subject to board’s approval process. This was motion for interlocutory injunction before commencement of proceeding before board until publication of official languages’ report or inclusion of French version of essential documents of application on board’s website. Motion dismissed. Parliament’s clear intention was to make Federal Court of Appeal only court that had jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review or appeals against rulings made by board. Purpose of interlocutory injunction motion was to challenge ruling of board. Federal Court was not appropriate forum. Appropriate way for moving parties to request stay of proceedings before board was to challenge board’s ruling before Federal Court of Appeal. Federal Court did not have jurisdiction with respect to main proceeding so therefore, it could not have jurisdiction to grant interlocutory relief. Federal Court had no jurisdiction to hear motion.

Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement c. Québec (Office national de l’Énergie) (Feb. 16, 2015, F.C., Yves de Montigny J., File No. T-167-15) 251 A.C.W.S. (3d) 444.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?