Federal appellate court heard Rogers’ acquisition of Shaw, access to Parole Board records this week

Rogers Communications’ acquisition of Shaw Communications, open access to court records of the Parole Board, and Charter violations of the Disabled Contributor’s Child Benefit among the topics heard by the Federal Court of Appeal.

Most interesting cases the Federal Court of Appeal heard this week

In Commissioner of Competition v. Rogers Communications Inc. et al, A-286-22, the Commissioner sought to prevent Rogers Communications Inc. from acquiring Shaw Communications Inc. The Commissioner alleged that the proposed transaction combined with the proposed divestiture will likely cause a substantial lessening and prevention of competition (SLPC) fore wireless services in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario. The Commissioner also alleged that the Competition Tribunal erred when it placed the burden upon them to demonstrate that the transactions would result in SLPC.

In Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Parole Board of Canada, A-251-21, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) sought access to the recordings of the Parole Board proceedings concerning several notorious inmates. The Board denied the request, stating that the open access to court records does not apply to parole board hearings. On judicial review, the lower court ruled that the openness principle applied only to judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals and not those classified as administrative. CBC appealed, alleging that the classification of tribunals is not determinative of the whether the openness principle applies and any restrictions to court records must be in accordance with the Charter.

In Susan Hume Smith v. Attorney General of Canada et al, A-238-21, Smith sought judicial review of the Social Security Tribunal Appeal division decision. The decision allowed the Minister's appeal and ruling that Hume's children were entitled to retroactive payment of the Disabled Contributor's Child Benefit only for 11 months before the applications were made. She alleged that it adversely impacted a subset of children of disabled parents by limiting the benefits received.