Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith, (2011) 412 N.R. 66 (SCC)

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateOctober 05, 2010
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2011), 412 N.R. 66 (SCC);2011 SCC 7;JE 2011-280;[2011] EXP 543;16 Admin LR (5th) 157;412 NR 66;328 DLR (4th) 1;EYB 2011-186160;[2011] ACS no 7;[2011] SCJ No 7 (QL);56 CELR (3d) 161;[2011] 1 SCR 160;102 LCR 1

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith (2011), 412 N.R. 66 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2011] N.R. TBEd. FE.027

Vernon Joseph Smith (appellant) v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd. (respondent) and Arbitration Committee, appointed pursuant to the National Energy Board Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-7, Part V (intervenor)

(33203; 2011 SCC 7; 2011 CSC 7)

Indexed As: Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.

February 11, 2011.

Summary:

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. constructed a pipeline route across a portion of Smith's farmland. A dispute arose regarding the reclamation of a portion of the land used for the pipeline. Smith sought to have the issue of compensation for the reclamation work arbitrated. A hearing was held before a Pipeline Arbitration Committee (the first PAC), but no decision was rendered because of a quorum issue. In 2003, Alliance filed a statement of claim, seeking an injunction, declaratory relief and an order directing the first PAC not to render a decision until such time as a matter respecting releases could be determined. The injunction application was dismissed by the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ([2003] A.R. Uned. 633). Alliance eventually discontinued its action. A second PAC was appointed. Smith's notice of arbitration asserted the same claims as were before the first PAC, but added a claim for costs of the first hearing and costs of its aborted action. The PAC awarded Smith $9,829 for reclamation work, $1,200 for trespass, $16,222.57 for his net legal fees, disbursements and GST relating to Alliance's Queen's Bench action and injunction application, and legal fees and disbursements of the arbitration proceedings, except for those directly related to attendance at the first hearing and subsequent correspondence regarding the status and effect of the first hearing after the loss of quorum. Alliance appealed, arguing that the second PAC erred in holding that it had jurisdiction to award costs and in the costs awarded.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported 318 F.T.R. 100, dismissed the appeal. Alliance appealed again.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 389 N.R. 363, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Federal Court, allowed Alliance's appeal from the second PAC decision and quashed the awards of the second panel in regard to the costs claims. The court held that while the PAC had jurisdiction to award costs, it erred in doing so with regard to the Alberta litigation and the first PAC proceedings. Smith appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, restored the decision of the second PAC, and pursuant to s. 47 of the Supreme Court Act, awarded Smith his costs, on a solicitor-client basis.

Expropriation - Topic 2321

Practice and procedure - Costs - Compensation under statute other than Expropriation Act (e.g., National Energy Board Act) - [See all Mines and Minerals - Topic 8554 ].

Expropriation - Topic 2328

Practice and procedure - Costs - Solicitor and client costs - [See second Mines and Minerals - Topic 8554 ].

Mines and Minerals - Topic 8554

Oil and gas - Pipelines - Construction and operation of - Compensation to landowners - Costs - Smith sought an arbitration under the National Energy Board Act (NEBA) regarding compensation for the reclamation of a portion of his farmland expropriated for use for a pipeline by Alliance Pipeline Ltd. - Proceedings before a Pipeline Arbitration Committee (the first PAC) were aborted - Alliance started court proceedings and sought injunctive relief - The Court of Queen's Bench (Alta.) dismissed the injunction application - Alliance eventually discontinued its action - A second PAC held that Smith was entitled to compensation, including his costs before the first PAC and on the Queen's Bench action - Alliance appealed, arguing that the PAC erred in holding that it had jurisdiction to award costs and in the costs awarded - The Federal Court dismissed the appeal - Alliance appealed again - The Federal Court of Appeal held that, regardless of the standard of review, the decision of the second PAC regarding costs had to be quashed - Smith appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada, reviewing the matter on the standard of reasonableness, held that the impugned decision of the second PAC satisfied that standard - The second PAC reasonably interpreted s. 99(1) of the NEBA as entitling it to make the impugned awards on costs - The court, therefore, allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the second PAC - Further, pursuant to s. 47 of the Supreme Court Act, the court awarded Smith his costs, on a solicitor-client basis.

Mines and Minerals - Topic 8554

Oil and gas - Pipelines - Construction and operation of - Compensation to landowners - Costs - Smith sought an arbitration under the National Energy Board Act (NEBA) regarding compensation for the reclamation of a portion of his farmland expropriated for use for a pipeline by Alliance Pipeline Ltd. - Proceedings before a Pipeline Arbitration Committee (the first PAC) were aborted - Alliance started court proceedings and sought injunctive relief - The Court of Queen's Bench (Alta.) dismissed the injunction application - Alliance eventually discontinued its action - A second PAC held that Smith was entitled to compensation, including his costs before the first PAC and on the Queen's Bench action - Alliance appealed - The Federal Court dismissed the appeal - Alliance appealed again - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - Smith appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the second PAC - Further, the court awarded Smith his costs on a solicitor-client basis (Supreme Court Act, s. 47) because: (1) in the context of modern expropriation law, where statutes authorize awards of "all legal, appraisal and other costs", Canadian jurisprudence and doctrine demonstrate that costs on a solicitor-and-client basis should generally be given; (2) awarding costs on a solicitor-client basis accorded well with the object and purpose of the NEBA, as reflected in s. 75; (3) this was a case in which justice could only be done by a complete indemnification for costs; and (4) Smith should not be made to bear the costs of what was clearly a test case for the Alliance - See paragraphs 72 to 77.

Mines and Minerals - Topic 8554

Oil and gas - Pipelines - Construction and operation of - Compensation to landowners - Costs - Section 99(1) of the National Energy Board Act provided that "Where the amount of compensation awarded to a person by an Arbitration Committee exceeds eighty-five per cent of the amount of compensation offered by the company, the company shall pay all legal, appraisal and other costs determined by the Committee to have been reasonably incurred by that person in asserting that person's claim for compensation" - The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted s. 99(1) accordingly - See paragraphs 41 to 58.

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [paras. 23, 80].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 26].

Celgene Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 410 N.R. 127; 2011 SCC 1, refd to. [paras. 28, 105].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237, refd to. [paras. 36, 94].

Conger Lehigh Coal Co. and Toronto (City), Re, [1934] O.R. 35 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Diggon-Hibben Ltd. v. R., [1949] S.C.R. 712, refd to. [para. 55].

Irving Oil Co. v. R., [1946] S.C.R. 551, refd to. [para. 55].

Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority v. Dell Holdings Ltd., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 32; 206 N.R. 321; 97 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 56].

MacDonald (Ian) Library Services Ltd. v. P.Z. Resort Systems Inc. (1987), 14 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Christian & Missionary Alliance v. Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (1973), 3 O.R.(2d) 655 (S.C. Taxing Office), refd to. [para. 60].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 140; 344 N.R. 293; 380 A.R. 1; 363 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 62].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460; 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 64].

Campbell River Woodworkers & Builders' Supply (1966) Ltd. v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways) (2004), 193 B.C.A.C. 29; 316 W.A.C. 29; 22 B.C.L.R.(4th) 210; 2004 BCCA 27, refd to. [para. 66].

Thoreson et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Alberta Infrastructure) (2007), 417 A.R. 173; 410 W.A.C. 173; 79 Alta. L.R.(4th) 75; 2007 ABCA 272, refd to. [para. 67].

Mahone Bay (Town) v. Lohnes, Younis and Lohnes' Market Ltd. (1983), 59 N.S.R.(2d) 68; 125 A.P.R. 68 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 68].

Lohnes, Lohnes and Lohnes' Market Ltd. v. Mahone Bay (Town) (1983), 60 N.S.R.(2d) 132; 128 A.P.R. 132; 28 L.C.R. 338 (Expropriation Comp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 69].

McKean v. Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) (2008), 94 L.C.R. 185 (O.M.B.), refd to. [para. 70].

Bayview Builder's Supply (1972) Ltd. v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways) (1999), 127 B.C.A.C. 225; 207 W.A.C. 225; 67 B.C.L.R.(3d) 312; 1999 BCCA 320, refd to. [para. 74].

Holdom v. British Columbia Transit (2006), 231 B.C.A.C. 315; 381 W.A.C. 315; 58 B.C.L.R.(4th) 207; 2006 BCCA 488, refd to. [para. 74].

Hill v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (1997), 206 N.R. 299; 157 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 462 A.P.R. 81; 155 D.L.R.(4th) 767 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 74].

Foulis v. Robinson (1978), 92 D.L.R.(3d) 134 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault - see Union des employés de service.

Union des employés de service, local 298 v. Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244; 35 Admin. L.R. 153, refd to. [para. 96].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 97].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 97].

Barrie Public Utilities et al. v. Canadian Cable Television Association et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 476; 304 N.R. 1; 2003 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 99].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 99].

Proprio Direct Inc. v. Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers du Québec et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 195; 375 N.R. 1; 2008 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 102].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 103].

Nolan v. Kerry (Canada) Inc. - see Nolan et al. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al.

Nolan et al. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al., [2009] 2 S.C.R. 678; 391 N.R. 234; 253 O.A.C. 256; 2009 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 104].

Statutes Noticed:

National Energy Board Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-7, sect. 99(1) [para. 42].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Boyd, Kenneth J., Expropriation in Canada: A Practitioner's Guide (1988), pp. 144, 145 [para. 55].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 7, 1st Sess., 32nd Parliament (March 6, 1981), p. 8006 [para. 51].

Dyzenhaus, David, The Politics of Deference: Judicial Review and Democracy, in Taggart, Michael, The Province of Administrative Law (1997), pp. 279, 298 [para. 92].

Jacobs, Laverne, Developments in Administrative Law: The 2007-2008 Term - The Impact of Dunsmuir (2008), 43 S.C.L.R.(2d) 1, p. 31 [para. 106].

Macaulay, Robert W., and Sprague, James L.H., Practice and Procedure Before Administrative Tribunals (2010 Looseleaf Update, Release 8), vol. 3, p. 28-40.48 [para. 86].

McLachlin, Beverley, The Roles of Administrative Tribunals and Courts in Maintaining the Rule of Law (1998), 12 C.J.A.L.P. 171, pp. 178, 179 [para. 94]; 180, 181 [para. 96].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 280, 577, 578 [para. 49]; 579 to 582 [para. 54]; 587 to 589 [para. 49]; 599 to 603 [para. 49].

Taggart, Michael, The Province of Administrative Law (1997), pp. 279, 298 [para. 92].

Todd, Eric C.E., The Law of Expropriation and Compensation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1992), pp. 505, 506 [para. 71]; 526 [para. 74].

Counsel:

Richard C. Secord, Meaghan M. Conroy and Yuk-Sing Cheng, for the appellant;

Munaf Mohamed and Jillian Strugnell, for the respondent;

No one appeared for the intervenor, the Arbitration Committee, appointed pursuant to the National Energy Board Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-7, Part V.

Solicitors of Record:

Ackroyd, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellant;

Bennett Jones, Calgary, Alberta, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 5, 2010, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the court was delivered in both official languages on February 11, 2011 and the following opinions were filed:

Fish, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 77;

Deschamps, J., concurring - see paragraphs 78 to 111.

To continue reading

Request your trial
460 practice notes
  • Najafi v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), (2013) 438 F.T.R. 135 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 16 d3 Janeiro d3 2013
    ...(Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat. Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 58]. Celgene Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 3; 410 N.R. 127; 2011 SCC 1, refd ......
  • Chagnon v. Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec, 2018 SCC 39
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 5 d5 Outubro d5 2018
    ...2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; Smith v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; McLean v. Briti......
  • Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation c. Canada (Environnement),
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • 28 d4 Julho d4 2011
    ...v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, 329 N.B.R. (2d) 1 , 291 D.L.R. (4th) 577 ; Smith v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160 , 328 D.L.R. (4th) 1 , 16 Admin. L.R. (5th) 157 ; R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771 , (1996), 181 A.R. 321 , 133 D.L.R. (4t......
  • Ready v Saskatoon Regional Health Authority, 2017 SKCA 20
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • 9 d4 Março d4 2017
    ...is, I believe, a natural extension of the approach to simplification set out in Dunsmuir and follows directly from Alliance (para. 26) [2011 SCC 7]. True questions of jurisdiction are narrow and will be exceptional. When considering a decision of an administrative tribunal interpreting or a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
432 cases
  • Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation c. Canada (Environnement),
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • 28 d4 Julho d4 2011
    ...v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, 329 N.B.R. (2d) 1 , 291 D.L.R. (4th) 577 ; Smith v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160 , 328 D.L.R. (4th) 1 , 16 Admin. L.R. (5th) 157 ; R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771 , (1996), 181 A.R. 321 , 133 D.L.R. (4t......
  • Chagnon v. Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec, 2018 SCC 39
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 5 d5 Outubro d5 2018
    ...2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; Smith v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; McLean v. Briti......
  • Ready v Saskatoon Regional Health Authority, 2017 SKCA 20
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • 9 d4 Março d4 2017
    ...is, I believe, a natural extension of the approach to simplification set out in Dunsmuir and follows directly from Alliance (para. 26) [2011 SCC 7]. True questions of jurisdiction are narrow and will be exceptional. When considering a decision of an administrative tribunal interpreting or a......
  • Canada (Commission canadienne des droits de la personne) c. Canada (Procureur général),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • 21 d4 Julho d4 2016
    ...1; Tranchemontagne v. Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program), 2006 SCC 14, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 513; Smith v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7, [2011] 1 S.C.R. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2011 SCC 61, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; McLean v. B......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • Real Estate & Urban Development @ Gowlings: October 18, 2012
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 19 d5 Outubro d5 2012
    ...are routinely contracted out of by the parties. Footnotes 1 In 2011, only one expropriation case was argued: Smith v. Alliance Pipeline, 2011 SCC 7; in 2012, the appeal of Antrim Truck Centre v. MTO, 2011 ONCA 419 will be heard in November 2 Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. British Columbia (Min......
  • Case Comment: Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. British Columbia (Ministry Of Forests)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 19 d5 Outubro d5 2012
    ...available as a result of government takings. Footnotes 1 In 2011, only one expropriation case was argued: Smith v. Alliance Pipeline, 2011 SCC 7; in 2012, the appeal of Antrim Truck Centre v. MTO, 2011 ONCA 419 will be heard in November 2012. 2 Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. British Columbia (......
  • Smith v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd.
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 25 d5 Fevereiro d5 2011
    ...2011 SCC 7 (Released February 2, Expropriation – Standard of Review – Costs – National Energy Board Act In this case the Supreme Court of Canada held that it was reasonable for an arbitration panel formed pursuant to the National Energy Board Act to award substantial indemnity costs to an i......
  • The Competition Tribunal Can Be Reviewed On Correctness
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 31 d6 Janeiro d6 2015
    ...Supreme Court's decision. 2 R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, ss. 92, 96. 3 Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9. 4 Smith v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 5 Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. Alberta Teachers' Association, 2011 SCC 61, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654. 6 Canada......
22 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Land-use Planning
    • 23 d5 Junho d5 2017
    ...Smiley v Ottawa (City), 2012 ONCJ 479 ...................................................... 212−13 Smith v Alliance Pipeline Ltd, 2011 SCC 7 ........................................................ 443 Smith v Lakeland (Regional Municipality 521), 2009 SKQB 86 ........................ 413 ......
  • Reliance on Extrinsic Aids
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Statutory Interpretation. Third Edition Analyzing the Entire Context
    • 23 d4 Junho d4 2016
    ...v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53 at para 43; R v Ulybel Enterprises Ltd, 2001 SCC 56 at para 33; Smith v Alliance Pipeline Ltd , 2011 SCC 7 at para 49; Hills v Canada (Attorney General) , [1988] 1 SCR 513 at para 20. 42 [2005] 3 SCR 425 at para 28. 43 For discussion of purely formal......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Statutory Interpretation. Third Edition Preliminary Sections
    • 23 d4 Junho d4 2016
    ...1 SCR 1038, 59 DLR (4th) 416, [1989] SCJ No 45 ............................................237, 242, 315 Smith v Alliance Pipeline Ltd, 2011 SCC 7 ........................................................ 273 Société des alcools du Québec v Canada (2000), [2001] 1 FC 386, [2000] ACF no 1353 ......
  • RENOVATING JUDICIAL REVIEW.
    • Canada
    • University of New Brunswick Law Journal No. 68, January 2017
    • 1 d0 Janeiro d0 2017
    ...lesions professionelles), [1993] 2 SCR 756, 105 DLR (4th) 385; Pezim, supra note 48; Southam, supra note 49; Smith v Alliance Pipeline Ltd, 2011 SCC 7, [2011] 1 SCR 160; Ontario (Energy Board) v Ontario Power Generation Inc, 2015 SCC 45, [2015] 3 SCR 147; ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd v Albert......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT