Federal Court Warns Against Private Meetings With Lobbyists in Ruling Favouring CRTC

Mirko Bibic, president and CEO of BCE and Bell Canada speaks during a CRTC hearing in Gatineau, Que., on Feb. 19, 2020. (The Canadian Press/Justin Tang)

Federal regulators should be wary of private meetings with lobbyists, the Federal Court of Appeal said in a ruling that reprimanded the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for a 2019 meeting between its CEO and Bell Canada’s chief executive.

The CRTC’s then-CEO Ian Scott and Bell Canada CEO Mirko Bibic were photographed on Dec. 18, 2019. Taken by TekSavvy Solutions Inc., the photo showed the two men drinking beer together at an Ottawa pub.

“Why were the two together? What was discussed? Why were just the two of them there without any witnesses?” Justice David Stratas said in his July 22 ruling, as first covered by Blacklock’s Reporter.

“Quite simply, meetings between two people, one a regulator, and one a regulatee, without any independent witnesses or other evidence to substantiate why the meeting happened and what was discussed can be a recipe for trouble.”

Ontario-based firm TekSavvy is challenging a CRTC rate ruling that it claims favoured Bell Canada. TekSavvy had argued the meeting between the two men had taken place “approximately one week after Bell filed an application to the CRTC asking it to review and vary its decision regarding wholesale rates, which the CRTC later approved.”

While the Court of Appeal ultimately rejected TekSavvy’s challenge of the ruling, it agreed that the private meeting could have been “problematic” if there had been “different facts and circumstances.” The judge said meetings where secret submissions could be offered outside of formal settings and away from other interested parties “subverts fairness and should not happen.”

However, the Court of Appeal said the allegation of bias by TekSavvy failed because it did not raise the issue with the CRTC until after the organization had released its decision. Additionally, the judge said Bell listed the purpose of the meeting as “broadcasting” and not “telecommunications,“ meaning that ”the rates applications in this telecommunications matter were not discussed.”

The CRTC had denied that anything improper occurred during the meeting.

In a 2022 ruling, then-Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion ruled that the barroom meeting breached no rules.

“Mr. Scott wrote that he paid for his own drink and Mr. Bibic paid for his,” the commissioner said in his report. “He wrote that no manner of gifts, advantages, or hospitality was exchanged.”