Terrestar Solutions Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, fca, 2026fca132, 2026 fca 132 (canlii), 2026, fca, 132, (canlii), a-368-24, 2026, communications and technology, telecommunications regulation, contribution regime, telecommunications act, s. 23, subs. 46.5(1), whether monetization of spectrum licences by sale or subordination is a “telecommunications service”, national contribution fund, contribution, eligible revenues, non, telecommunications services revenues deductions, spectrum allocated for telecommunications services treated as incidental, appeal dismissed, procedure, statutory appeal, question of law or jurisdiction, telecommunications act, s. 64, whether dispute over “incidental” under telecommunications act, s. 23 is an extricable question of law, application of legal standard to particular circumstances as mixed fact and law, teksavvy solutions inc. v. bell canada, canadian national railway company v. emerson milling inc. applied, appeal dismissed, administrative law, reasons, adequacy of reasons, whether commission’s reasons prevent meaningful appellate review, r. v. sheppard, manitoba métis federation inc. v. canada (energy regulator) applied, initial decision and review decision said to explain why spectrum sale and subordination are incidental, reasons found sufficient in fair and contextual reading, appeal dismissed, administrative law, retroactivity, retroactive decision, making, whether commission imposed a new contribution requirement for past revenues, bell canada v. amtelecom limited partnership test for retroactive law, review decision applied existing legal standard in telecommunications act, s. 23 to actual circumstances, no change to legal landscape found, appeal dismissed, communications and technology, telecommunications accounting, operating revenues, whether commission erred in classifying spectrum sale and subordination revenues as operating revenues, including by reference to gaap, commission observed revenues were included in reported operating revenues, no legal ruling on interpretation of operating revenues made, argument rejected as mischaracterization, appeal dismissed