Review and Variance – Interlocutory Decisions – Application for Review
In this decision, the AUC considered an application by ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. and ATCO Electric Ltd. the (“ATCO Utilities”) requesting a review of the AUC ruling dated July 20, 2017, in Proceeding 20514 (the “Ruling”). The Ruling directed the ATCO Utilities to file certain information on the record in Proceeding 20514.
The AUC dismissed the review application on the grounds that the Ruling was an interlocutory decision and the ATCO Utilities had not demonstrated special circumstances that would warrant granting review.
The AUC further found that, in any event, the review application was moot, given the AUC’s subsequent decision to relieve the ATCO Utilities from the obligation to provide the directed information.
AUC Findings
The AUC considered whether the Ruling was a final or interlocutory decision. The AUC explained that if the ruling was an interlocutory decision, the courts have established guidelines for when a review application will be considered.
The AUC cited the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) decision Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. v. Peak Innovations Inc., 2008 FCA 235 at para 6, where the FCA defined “interlocutory judgement or order” as follows:
An “interlocutory judgment or order” is one that does not determine in whole or in part any substantive right of any of the parties.
The AUC also referred to the FCA decision Canada (Border Services Agency) v. C.B. Powell Limited, 2010 FCA 61, where the FCA emphasised that, absent special or exceptional circumstances, parties should not be allowed to bypass an administrative appeal process “as long as that process allows the issues to be raised and an effective remedy to be granted.”
Based on the above, the AUC found that the Ruling was an interlocutory decision, as the ATCO Utilities had effective remedies following the issuance of a final decision in Proceeding 20514. The AUC found that the ATCO Utilities would still have the right to challenge the final decision to the extent any of the directed information were to be relied upon by the hearing panel in its reasons.
The AUC found that ATCO Utilities had not shown the existence of special circumstances that would warrant granting the review of the interlocutory Ruling and therefore denied the ATCO Utilities’ request for review of the Ruling.
For these reasons, the AUC dismissed the review application.
