Aerlinte Eireann Teoranta et al. v. Canada, (1987) 9 F.T.R. 29 (TD)

• Judge: Muldoon, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 20, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1987), 9 F.T.R. 29 (TD)

Aerlinte Eireann Teoranta v. Can. (1987), 9 F.T.R. 29 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Aerlinte Eireann Teoranta et al. v. Canada

T-1250-80

Indexed As: Aerlinte Eireann Teoranta et al. v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Muldoon, J.

February 20, 1987.

Summary:

The Minister of Transport enacted Air Services Fees Regulations which imposed different landing fees for domestic, international and transoceanic flights pursuant to s. 5 of the Aeronautics Act, which provided that the Minister could make regulations prescribing charges for the use of any facility or service provided by the Minister in respect of any aircraft. Several airlines brought an action challenging the validity of the Regulations, claiming that they were subjected to discriminatory and illegal overcharges for landing fees with respect to transoceanic flights.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the action. The court held that the Regulations were within the powers delegated to the Minister in s. 5 of the Aeronautics Act. The Regulations were not null and void by reason of discrimination. Discrimination between classes of users based on flight origins and destinations did not rob the Regulation of its validity.

Aeronautics - Topic 2703

Regulation - Tariffs and tolls - Authority to impose - Several airlines challenged the validity of certain Air Services Fees Regulations which imposed landing fees for different flight categories - The fees were based upon costs incurred throughout Canada's international airport system - The airlines argued that this method of imposing fees was beyond the powers conferred by s. 5 of the Aeronautics Act which authorized Regulations prescribing charges for the "use" of any facility or service because the airlines did not use the facilities or services of every Canadian airport - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the Regulations were within the powers delegated in s. 5 of the Aeronautics Act - S. 5 was a pricing provision and the Minister did not have to recover costs or establish a cost base.

Civil Rights - Topic 8305

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Application of - Persons protected - Corporations - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that the equality and anti-discrimination provisions in the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter were human rights which applied to individuals but not to corporations - See paragraph 47.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8365

Implementation of treaties - Enforcement - Treaties not incorporated in domestic law - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that complaints respecting treaties which were not incorporated into Canadian law were not justiciable before the tribunals and courts of Canada because judicial power alone was incapable of enforcing treaties which were not incorporated into the law by legislative power - See paragraph 52.

International Law - Topic 5

General - Incorporation into domestic law - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that where international law, either customary or under treaty, was expressly incorporated into domestic law, it operated as cogently and enforceably as Canadian law - See paragraph 52.

Statutes - Topic 5372

Operation and effect - Delegated legislation - Regulations - Validity - Discrimination - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that discrimination and unreasonableness could not be grounds for quashing regulations enacted by the executive - See paragraph 40.

Statutes - Topic 5372

Operation and effect - Delegated legislation - Regulations - Validity - Discrimination - Several airlines challenged the validity of certain Air Services Fees Regulations, which imposed different landing fees for different flight categories, on the basis of discrimination - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the Regulations were not discriminatory - The chosen basis of classification was not unreasonable and did not include irrelevant, illogical or illegal considerations.

Civil Rights - Topic 902

Discrimination - Defined - [See Statutes - Topic 5372 above].

Cases Noticed:

Pan American World Airways Inc. v. Canada, Government of and Minister of Transport, [1979] 2 F.C. 34 (F.C.T.D.), affd. (1980), 120 D.L.R.(3d) 574, affd. [1981] 2 S.C.R. 565; 41 N.R. 230, refd to. [paras. 10, 25, 36, 51].

Gravel v. City of St. Leonard, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 660; 17 N.R. 486, refd to. [para. 30].

Alaska Trainship Corp'n. & al. v. Pacific Pilotage Authority & al., [1978] 1 F.C. 411 (T.D.), not appld. [para. 38].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and Antipoverty Organization v. Attorney General of Canada, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 73 N.R. 304; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 39].

Kruse v. Johnson, [1898] 2 Q.B. 91, refd to. [para. 40].

Procureur General du Canada c. Compagnie de Publication La Presse Limitee, [1967] S.C.R. 60, refd to. [para. 41].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Director of Kent Institution (1986), 63 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 43].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 45].

Kiriri Cotton Co. Ltd. v. Ranchhoddas Keshavi Dewani, [1960] A.C. 192, refd to. [para. 81].

Eadie v. Brantford (Township), [1967] S.C.R. 573, refd to. [para. 81].

Nepean Hydro-Electric Commission v. Ontario Hydro, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 347; 41 N.R. 1, folld. [para. 81].

Statutes Noticed:

Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. A-3, sect. 5 [paras. 9, 10, 13, 15, 18, 24, 26, 27, 30, 32, 35, 61, 62].

Air Service Regulations [paras. 1 to 86].

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III [para. 47].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 15 [para. 47].

Civil Code of Quebec, art. 1047, art. 1140 [para. 79].

Ministerial Regulations Authorization Order, C.R.C. 1978, c. 126 [para. 9].

Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. O-2, sect. 8, sect. 8(2)(b), sect. 8(2)(c) [para. 17].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed. 1979) [para. 22].

Chevrette and Marx, Droit Constitutionnel (1982) [para. 49].

Dictionnaire Juridique/Legal Dictionary - The New Th. A. Quemner Dictionary (1977) [para. 23].

Driedger, Elmer A., Subordinate Legislation (1960), 38 Can. Bar Rev. 1 [para. 40].

Driedger, Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 160 [para. 30].

Hogg, P., Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd Ed. 1985) [para. 50].

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1983) [para. 21].

Counsel:

Raymond D. LeMoyne and Peter Richardson, for the plaintiffs;

W. Ian C. Binnie, Q.C., and David T. Sgayias, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Doheny, MacKenzie, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiffs;

F. Iacobucci, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendants.

This case was heard in Ottawa, Ontario, from January 20, 1986, to February 27, 1986, before Muldoon, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on February 20, 1987: