that the CRTC lacks jurisdiction in this area. This case involved
appeals by four immigration detainees from a decision denying
jurisdiction to determine a challenge to their detentions by way of
habeas corpus. The appellants’ continued detention was confirmed through a series of 30-day reviews and a review decision
was subject to judicial review in the Federal Court pursuant to
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
The Court of Appeal in Chaudhary relied upon a decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada in May v. Ferndale Institution, 
3 S.C.R. 809,  S.C.J. No. 84 in which the court had considered five factors that militate in favour of concurrent jurisdiction
by the Superior Court with the Federal Court. Rouleau J.A.
acknowledged that the Federal Court has greater expertise
in immigration matters than the superior courts and that in such
matters, a superior court should defer to the Federal Court. However, he considered that the issues raised by the appellants
are fundamentally detention decisions and that the issues do
not require the court to have expertise in immigration law. The
appellants were allowed to exercise their Charter right to access
 The five factors that were addressed in Chaudhary were ( i)
the choice of remedies and forums, ( ii) the expertise [of] provincial superior courts, ( iii) the timeliness of the remedy, ( iv) local
access to the remedy and ( v) the nature of the remedy and the
burden of proof. Ms. Goldy submits that some of these factors
apply in this case and support a finding that the Superior Court
of Justice has concurrent jurisdiction with the CRTC to hear this
 I disagree that the decision in Chaudhary affects the
determination of whether the CRTC has exclusive jurisdiction in
the area with which the dispute is concerned. The factors were
considered only in relation to their relevance to the issue before
the Court of Appeal, that is, whether the appellants were entitled
to exercise a right to habeas corpus from the Superior Court. The
subject matter of the case and the statutory framework are
entirely different from those in relation to the issue of jurisdiction
that is before me.
 Bell submits that the area with which this dispute is concerned involves the interpretation and enforcement by the CRTC
of its own regulations and that it has long been the law of Ontario
that this area is one of exclusive jurisdiction of the CRTC.
 Bell relies upon the decision of Sharpe J. (as he then was)
in Mahar v. Rogers Cablesystems Ltd. (1995), 25 O.R. (3d) 690,
 O.J. No. 3035 (Gen. Div.) and other cases that have followed this decision.