CITATION: Bazos v. Bell Media Inc., 2018 ONSC 6146 COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-00606558-0000 DATE: 20181016 ONTARIO. SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ) FAITH BAZOS (aka FAITH GOLDY) ; ) Clayton Ruby and Stephanie DiGiuseppe, for Applicant ) the Applicant tie } BELL MEDIA INC. este ae Respondent : Respondent ) ; HEARD: October 15, 2018 CAVANAGH J. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Overview. [1] The applicant Faith Bazos goes by the name Faith Goldy. Ms. Goldy is one of thirty-five candidates for Mayor of the City of Toronto in the upcoming municipal election that will take place on October 22, 2018. [2] Bell Media Inc, (“Bell”) is a Canadian broadcaster that owns and operates local television stations across Canada as well as certain discretionary programming services, including Cable Pulse 24 (“CP24”), [3] Ms. Goldy’s team contacted CP24 in late August 2018 to inquire about purchasing advertising time to run electoral advertisements and, in response, she was contacted by an account executive for CP24 on August 22, 2018. Over the ensuing days, Ms. Goldy made arrangements with Bell to place political advertisements in respect of her candidacy for Mayor of Toronto to run on its CP24 television station.Page: 2 [4] _ On September 26, 2018, CP24 notified Ms. Goldy that it would not be able to run the advertisements that were planned and that it would refund the money that she had paid for these advertisements. [5] No reason was given by Bell for this decision at the time that it was communicated to Ms. Goldy. [6] Bell has provided evidence on this application that it received over 80 written complaints and over 15 complaints by voicemail opposing the running of Ms. Goldy’s advertisements on CP24, and that a number of advocacy groups posted messages on Twitter asking Bell not to run ‘Ms. Goldy’s advertisements and encouraging their followers to contact Bell on the subject. Bell provided evidence that Ms. Goldy is publicly known for political views that have been described as “far right” and “alt right”. In its factum for the hearing of the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, Bell deseribes its decision not to complete its business transaction with Ms. Goldy as a “business decision”, [7] Ms. Goldy’s evidence is that she believes that Bell refuses to run her advertisements ‘ecause those with decision-making responsibilities at Bell do not agree with her political beliefs and wish to silence her, [8] Ms. Goldy started to look for counsel to represent her in respect of Bell's decision on the same day that she was informed of this decision. She was initially not able to find counsel to represent her. She was only able to meet with her legal counsel on this application on October 3, 2018, and she was not able to complete arrangements to retain counsel until October 5, 2018, the Friday before the Thanksgiving weekend. Ms. Goldy commenced this application on Tuesday, October 9, 2018. (9] On her application, Ms. Goldy seeks a declaration pursuant to rule 14,05(3)(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure that Bell is required to allocate time for the broadcasting of her partisan Political advertisements relating to her candidacy in the 2018 Toronto municipal clection and a mandatory order requiring Bell to do so. In the alternative, Ms. Goldy seeks the same declaratory relief and mandatory order pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. She also seeks this declaratory relief and a mandatory order pursuant to a contract with Bell. [10] In support of her application, Ms. Goldy relies upon regulations passed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) pursuant to the federal Broadcasting Act that address the allocation of time for the broadcasting of advertisements of a partisan political character to rival candidates represented in an election, Ms. Goldy submaits that ‘under these regulations, she has a statutory right to purchase airtime from Bell on an “equitable basis” and that Bell breached her statutory right by refusing to provide airtime for her election advertisements. [11] _ Bell objects to the jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate on Ms. Goldy’s application. Bell submits that if Ms. Goldy wishes to enforce CRTC regulations against Bell, she should be seeking a mandatory order from the CRTC and that provincial superior courts do not have jurisdiction to interpret and apply CRTC regulations. Ms. Goldy disagrees, and submits that thePage: 3 Ontario Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction to hear this application and, in the circumstances, it should hear the application, otherwise access to justice will be denied. [12] On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 counsel for the parties attended at Civil Practice Court and agreed that there would be a hearing in the afternoon on Monday, October 15, 2018, with a compressed timetable for exchange of materials, for determination of the following preliminary issues: a, Does the Court, based on the circumstances of this case, have jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, and, if so, based on the factual matrix of this case, should it exercise its discretion to grant the relief sought, notwithstanding the existence of a specialized tribunal, the CRTC? b. Are the remainder of the issues to be heard urgent in nature? [13] _ For the following reasons, I conclude that the CRTC has exclusive jurisdiction to grant the relief sought on this application that involves the interpretation and enforcement of the CRTC regulations upon which Ms. Goldy relies for the relief she seeks. I conclude that Ms. Goldy’s altemative claims for relief under s. 24(1) of the Charter are subject to the concurrent jurisdiction of the CRTC and this Court. I conclude that in respect of the claim for Charter relief, this court should not exercise its discretion to hear this part of the application. The entire application should be heard by the CRTC. Analysis [14] _ First,.I will address the statutory and regulatory framework governing the allocation of advertising time to candidates during an election, [15] I will then address the jurisdictional issue that the parties have agreed should be decided as a preliminary matter. This part of my analysis will follow the approach suggested by counsel for Ms. Goldy that involves answering the following questions: a. Is the area with which the dispute is concerned one of concurrent, overlapping, or exclusive jurisdiction as between the Superior Court of Justice and the CRTC? b. If the CRTC has exclusive jurisdiction in an area with which the dispute is concemed, is the essential character of the dispute within the area of exclusive jurisdiction? c. If the essential character of the dispute is within an area of exclusive jurisdiction, is the remedy required one which the CRTC has the authority to grant? . If the dispute falls within an area of concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction, should the Court exercise its discretion to hear the matter notwithstanding the CRIC’s jurisdiction? [16] _ Finally, 1 will consider certain other matters that Ms. Goldy submits should influence my decision on the question of jurisdiction, specifically, (i) the subject matter of this application, in