JCT: The CRTC just handed down its ruling on my complaint about
being denied an equitable share in a political debate for
exhibiting my party badge. But first, we were waiting for the
Court decision on the complaint:


Court File No: A451-07
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

Date: 20081217
Citation: 2008 FCA 405

CORAM: LETOURNEAU J.A., NOEL J.A., BLAIS J.A.

BETWEEN:
John C. Turmel
Applicant

and
Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission
Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LETOURNEAU:

[1] Mr. John C. Turmel who is self-represented seeks by way of
judicial review a declaratory relief against respondent.
[2] The facts underlying the applicant's demand can be summarized
as follows.
[3] Mr. Turmel was an independent candidate in the 2007 Ontario
general election. On Sop 18 2007, he participated in a debate
program hosted by Rogers Television (Rogers) for six candidates
of the riding of Brant.
[4] Mr. Turmel wore a button showing his party affiliation. He
was required to remove his button by the moderator, which he did.
subsequently removed from the debate because, according to
Rogers, he interrupted a fellow candidate.

JCT: Keep in mind, I was talking within my minute after Fuhrer
Philp had interrupted me. Ignore that and it could be said I was
interrupting the next guy using the minute I had been denied.

[5] Six days later, he complained to the respondent, alleging his
removal from the debate violated his equitable share of the free-
time partisan political broadcast required by the CRTC
regulations.

[6] A staff member of the respondent informed Mr. Turmel that the
respondent was seeking a response from Rogers and requesting that
Rogers keep a tape of the broadcast in question.

[7] By the same occasion, Mr. Turmel was informed that his
complaint would be placed on the public file at the end of three
weeks unless he objected. Failing an objection, the matter of the
complaint would be dealt with by the respondent during license
renewal time or by interested parties. He did not object to this
process proposed by the respondent.

[8] On October 1 2007, Mr. Turmel wrote to the respondent
requesting it compel Rogers to give the applicant an equitable
share of time before Election Day. However, three days later, on
Oct 24, he brought the issue before this Court by seeking an
order in the nature of mandamus against the respondent. The
application was dismissed by Decary J.A. on Nov 5 2007.

[9] After a review of the facts, the parties' submissions and the
law, I have come to the conclusion that this application for
judicial review should be dismissed.

[10] The first difficulty encountered in these proceedings
originates from the fact that the respondent rendered no decision
which can be the subject of judicial review or agaisnt which
relief can be sought. Mr. Turmel did not pursue his complaint
before the respondent and request the respondent to rule on it.
Instead he applied to this Court for mandamus.

[11] This Court cannot, in the context of the present
proceedings, exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon the
respondnent and proceed to assess the merit of Mr. Turmel's
complaint. There is no evidence on the record that the respondent
refused to deal with the complaint. On the contrary.

[12] Moreover, had Mr. Turmel pursued his complaint and obtained
a decision from the respondent, he would have had a right of
appeal on leave from that decision pursuant to s.31(2) of the
Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c.11. The existence of a right of
appeal, whether or not limited by a requirement to obtain leave,
is a bar against judicial review: see s18.5 and ss28(2) of the
Federal Courts Act and Pachul v. CRTC, 289 N.R. 117 (F.C.A.) He
would have been barred from bringing this judicial review
proceeding.

Gilles Letourneau J.A.
I agree. Marc Noel J.A.
I agree. Pierre Blais J.A.
Dec 17 2008

JCT: So I called up the CRTC and said I wanted them to proceed
with my complaint against Rogers denying me my equitable share of
time for wearing my party button, what they call "breaking the
rules" of Fuhrer Philp.

On April 8 2009, I received notice that the CRTC had posted their
decision on my complaint to their web site:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-184.htm

Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2009-184
Ottawa, 8 April 2009

CRTC: Complaint regarding an election debate program broadcast by
Rogers Cable Communications Inc. during the 2007 Ontario
provincial election

In this decision, the Commission finds that Rogers Cable
Communications Inc. did not breach section 27(4) of the
Broadcasting Distribution Regulations when it expelled a
political candidate from an election debate program during the
2007 Ontario provincial election campaign. The Commission
therefore dismisses the complaint by Mr. John Turmel.

JCT: Notice they just couldn't tell the whole truth which was
Rogers "expelled a political candidate for wearing a party
button." When they leave my biggest point out of the discussion,
you know the decision isn't going to go well.

CRTC: Introduction

1. On 24 September 2007, the Commission received a complaint from
Mr. John Turmel regarding an election debate program broadcast by
Rogers Cable Communications Inc. (Rogers) on its community
channel, Rogers TV. In his complaint, Mr. Turmel submitted that
Rogers breached regulations regarding the equitable allocation of
time for programs of a partisan political character by expelling
him from the program.

JCT: They forgot to mention that it was for refusing stand
politically naked without my party affiliation again. Must be a
pretty strong point to be omitted twice in the first 3
paragraphs.

CRTC: 2. On 18 September 2007, Rogers taped a program involving a
debate between six candidates in the riding of Brant, one of whom
was Mr. Turmel. The program was to be broadcast a number of times
in September and October 2007. The Ontario provincial election
took place on 10 October 2007.

3. Rogers replied to Mr. Turmel's complaint on 27 September 2007.
Mr. Turmel was not satisfied with Rogers' reply and on 1 October
2007, he requested that the Commission take action in relation to
his complaint by directing Rogers to grant him an equitable share
of airtime before election day.

4. On 4 October 2007, Mr. Turmel brought an application for
judicial review in the Federal Court of Appeal in an effort to
have the situation remedied before the further rebroadcast of the
election debate program. A judge of the Federal Court of Appeal
denied interim relief in November 2007. The Federal Court of
Appeal dismissed Mr. Turmel's application on 17 December 2008 on
the grounds that the Commission had not rendered a decision with
respect to Mr. Turmel's complaint which could be the subject of
judicial review or against which relief could be sought.1

5. Subsequently, on 26 January 2009, Mr. Turmel requested that
the Commission render a decision on his complaint.

The complaint

6. Mr. Turmel submitted that he had been denied an equal share of
time in Rogers' election debate program as required by the
regulations regarding the equitable allocation of time for
programs of a partisan political character.

JCT: For refusing to go on the show naked.

CRTC: Mr. Turmel stated that, in contrast to the other candidates
who were invited to participate in the debate and who received an
equal share of a two-hour debate, he was given only seconds
before being denied any further time.

JCT: Third time they can't bring themselves to admit that was
because I didn't want to go on naked of my party affiliation like
the others accepted to do.

CRTC: Mr. Turmel requested that the Commission direct Rogers to
grant him an equitable share of time in the debate program before
election day. Specifically, Mr. Turmel requested that Rogers
correct the situation by allowing him to tape a 32-minute segment
to be added before or after the remaining broadcasts of the
election debate program.

Rogers' reply

7. In its reply, Rogers denied that Mr. Turmel was not granted
equitable time in the election debate program. Rogers stated that
Mr. Turmel was provided with the debate rules and format in
advance, and at no time prior to the debate had Mr. Turmel raised
concerns with regard to them.

JCT: Actually, Philp had started using Brantford police years
earlier to take away my engineer's cap and party button and make
me stand completely naked with the others. Obey Fuhrer Philp's
Dress Code or we get no time. So there was a history. Thougn none
of the other candidates agreed with Philp's Dress Code, when we
told him so, Fuhrer Philp ignored us and stood firm in his
demand. So the others all went on the show stripped of their
chosen apparel and chosen political appearance.

CRTC: According to Rogers, Mr. Turmel used his opening statement
to take issue with the moderator and the debate format; he
refused to remove a badge he was wearing despite the fact that
the debate rules prohibited candidates from displaying
promotional material on the production set; and he interrupted
the opening remarks of a fellow candidate.

JCT: And of course, though I mentioned that I had worn by LETS
badge and trademark cap in earlier Brant elections, they don't
notice it was Fuhrer Philp changing the rules from the earlier
rules that I was objecting about. It's different when you know
Philp changed the rules to strip me of my advantages, not that I
merely flouted the standard rules. You can tell a lot about their
weak points by the things they try to hide.
And though the court mentioned I had finally obeyed Fuhrer
Philp's command, he then proceeded to throw me out anyway. So
when I complied with the rules, he threw me out anyway. I guess
it doesn't matter when Big Brother says so.

CRTC: In Rogers' view, Mr. Turmel was provided with an equitable
opportunity to participate in the debate program and Rogers acted
in a professional manner to ensure the coverage of the debate was
balanced and not disruptive to its viewers.

JCT: How does Philp changing the dress code ensure the coverage
was balanced and not disruptive to its viewers? Making sure
everyone goes on stripped naked keeps things balanced?

CRTC: Commission's analysis and determinations

8. Given that the election has already taken place, the
Commission considers moot Mr. Turmel's request for relief,
namely, that the Commission compel Rogers to provide him with an
equitable share of time as part of the broadcasts of the election
debate program.

JCT: Now I sought a declaration that my share was inequitable
because their "Turmel disobeyed by not going on naked" reason for
denying me my share of time is not valid. Equitable time should
not be a funcntion of a candidate's appearance or presentation.

CRTC: 9. However, at the heart of Mr. Turmel's complaint is his
allegation that, by expelling him from the debate program, Rogers
breached the Commission's regulations regarding the equitable
allocation of time for programs of a partisan political character
during an election period.

JCT: Unless refusing to obey Fuhrer Philp's dress code is reason
enough to not get a fair share of time. If the CRTC decides that
Fuhrer Philp has the power to make us go on naked if we want our
share of time, they'll have to say so.

CRTC: 10. The regulatory provision regarding the equitable
allocation of time for programs of a partisan political character
that applies to Rogers is set out in section 27(4) of the
Broadcasting Distribution Regulations:
If a licensee provides time on the community channel in a
licensed area during an election period for the distribution of
programming of a partisan political character, the licensee shall
allocate that time on an equitable basis among all accredited
political parties and rival candidates.

JCT: "if they obey Philp's dress code" isn't there.

CRTC: 11. Similarly worded provisions exist in the Radio
Regulations, 1986, the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 1987,

JCT: And it says nothing about dress code restrictions on getting
an equitable share of time from other media too. A dress code on
radio?

12. In Public Notice 1995-44, the Commission clarified that the
above provisions in the regulations do not apply to debate
programs.

JCT: New regs say debates don't have to be equitable. We can
imagine the tortured reasoning that came up with that bent
decision.

CRTC: In the same notice, the Commission further stated that it
would not require that debate programs feature all rival parties
or candidates in one or more programs.

JCT: Think about that. You can still run a fair game without
letting all the contestants play. Lawyer thinking. Big Brother
selects who gets to take shots at the hoop and who doesn't and
it's all fair in lawyer-thinking.

CRTC: This notice followed the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision
in R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation et al., [1993] 51
C.P.R.(3d), which held that debate programs were not programs of
a "partisan political character" within the meaning of the
Commission's regulations.

JCT: Partisan political debate is not of partisan political
character. I told you it was going to be convoluted reasoning and
here it comes:

CRTC: In the Court's view, while the participants in a debate may
very well be partisan, the program itself was not because it
presented the views of multiple candidates.

JCT: Quite true when all the views of the multiple candidates in
the game are shown.

CRTC: As such, the Court found that debate programs were not
covered by the relevant provisions of the Commission's
regulations.

JCT: Sure you may not call a debate "partisan" when everyone is
in on a share of the influence on the vopters, but that doesn't
apply to debates where everyone doesn't get to play.

So because debates with everyone are not unfairly partisan,
debates in general aren't partisan, and finally, debates with
some people not there are also not partisan. Lawyer thinking. And
debates with only 1 person are not partisan for the same rea;son
that debates in general are not partisan because debates with
everyone there aren't partisan. I told you it was going to a
sicko travel through the labyrinths of the lawying mind.

CRTC: Leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of
Canada was denied.

JCT: And there are judges lawying at the top too.

CRTC: 13. The Commission reiterated these determinations in
Broadcasting Circular 2007-5 in connection with the 10 October
2007 Ontario provincial election.

JCT: Court logic: Because debates with everyone present are not
partisan, debates without everyone present aren't partisan too.

CRTC: 14. In light of the Commission's determinations in Public
Notice 1995-44, the Commission considers that it is within
Rogers' editorial discretion to set the rules and format for
debates it chooses to air, and to exclude participants where, in
its view, those rules are not being complied with.

JCT: So it is within Big Brother's editorial discretion to set
any rules or dress code they want and candidates who do not obey
these dictatorial and arbitrary changes do not benefit of the
protections in the Broadcasting Act for equitable treatment.
"hey, you wore the blue shirt when they told you not to so it's
fair that your views be excluded."

No matter what the rule, even Rogers having the editorial
discretion to set the rules and format that makes all the
candidates go on naked for debates it chooses to air, and to
exclude participants where, it its view, those rules of going on
naked are not being complied with. So the CRTC says Big Brother
Fuhrer Philp can order us to do anything he wants and we have to
obey.

CRTC: 15. Accordingly, the Commission finds that Rogers Cable
Communications Inc. did not breach section 27(4) of the
Broadcasting Distribution Regulations when it expelled Mr. Turmel
from an election debate program during the 2007 Ontario
provincial election campaign.

JCT: Because of his appearance, omitted for the fourth time. They
just presume Big Brother is all-powerful so there's no need to
even ask why they changed the rules. Fuhrer Philp changed the
rules and candidates must obey.

CRTC: The Commission therefore dismisses the complaint by Mr.
John Turmel.

JCT: So the CRTC accepts officially that candidates must obey
whatever rules Big Brother chooses to impose, it gives Fuhrer
Philp the power to strip candidates of any apparel he doesn't
want them to wear, any props he doesn't want them to display, for
any reason he wants.

Rogers tried to impose the Fuhrer Philp dress code on candidates
in the Guelph election too. Making elections colorless and boring
the Fuhrer Philp way is spreading. And candidates knuckling under
on being told what they can't wear is growing. Just getting ready
to obey if they ever get elected.

Imagine, under the Fuhrer Philp rules, candidates can't use a
graph, a headline, a picture, a button, a hat. The trademark he
left me was my Royal Flush tie and that may be the next rule he
changes for the next election, no cards on ties.

Secretary General
Related documents
Guidelines to all licensees of broadcasting undertakings serving
the province of Ontario concerning the Ontario provincial
election that will take place on 10 October 2007, Broadcasting
Circular CRTC 2007-5, 7 September 2007
Election-period broadcasting: Debates, Public Notice CRTC 1995-
44, 15 March 1995
This decision is available in alternative format upon request and
may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following
Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca.
Footnote
1 John C. Turmel vs. CRTC, 2008 FCA 405

JCT: So another piece of shameful Canadian Jurisprudence. Big
Brother sets the rules that can strip candidates of their party
affiliation, helpful props for their presentations and there's
nothing we can do to get a fair share of Canadian air-space they
are licensed to use without obeying Big Brother's rules. If I can
be denied my fair share of airtime for a mere showing of my party
button, the protections of democracy in the Broadcast Act and
CRTC are a joke.

You have to admit, it makes you want to puke when you realize
that it means the CRTC is letting Fuhrer Philp get away with
ejecting me from my fair share of time in the game for a dress
code violation he arbitrarily changed. Can't have democracy
without a proper dress code?

Now I have to appeal the CRTC decision to the Federal Court. I
wonder if the court will agree that dress code violations should
result in the suspension of the equitableness requirements in the
Broadcast Act.