Can. 3000 Inc. (Bankrupt), Re, (2004) 183 O.A.C. 201 (CA)

• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: January 20, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2004), 183 O.A.C. 201 (CA)

Can. 3000 Inc. (Bankrupt), Re (2004), 183 O.A.C. 201 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.074

In The Matter Of The Bankruptcy of Canada 3000 Inc., of The City of Toronto, in The Province of Ontario;

And In The Matter Of The Bankruptcy of Canada 3000 Airlines Limited/Lignes Aériennes Canada 3000 Limitée, of The City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario.

And In The Matter Of The Bankruptcy of Royal Aviation Inc., of The City of Toronto, in The Province of Ontario.

Greater Toronto Airports Authority, Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc., Halifax International Airport Authority, Edmonton Regional Airports Authority, The Calgary Airport Authority, Aéroports de Montréal, Ottawa MacDonald-Cartier International Airport Authority, Vancouver International Airport Authority, St. John's International Airport Authority, and NAV Canada (appellants/respondents and respondents by cross-appeal) v. International Lease Finance Corporation, Hyr Här I Sverige Kommanditbolag, IAI X, Inc., Triton Aviation International LLC, Sierra Leasing Limited, ACG Acquisition XXV LLC, ILFC International Lease Finance Canada, Ltd., U.S. Airways, Inc., G.E. Capital Aviation Services, Inc., as agent and manager for Polaris Holding Company and AFT Trust-Sub I, Pegasus Aviation, Inc., PALS I, Inc., Ansett Worldwide Aviation, U.S.A. and MSA V (respondents/appellants and appellants by cross-appeal) and RRPF Engine Leasing Limited, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, and Flight Logistics Inc. (respondents) and C.I.T. Leasing Corporation, NBB-Royal Lease Partnership One, and GATX/CL Air Leasing Cooperative Association (respondents/appellants by cross-appeal)

(C38228; C38229; C38241; C37427; C37425; C37426; C37429; C37444)

Indexed As: Canada 3000 Inc. (Bankrupt), Re

Ontario Court of Appeal

Abella and Cronk, JJ.A. and Juriansz, J.(ad hoc)

January 20, 2004.

Summary:

The Canada 3000 companies (Canada 3000) leased most of their aircraft. Canada 3000 owed over $21 million to several airport authorities (the authorities). It also owed over $7 million to NAV Canada for civil air navigation services. Canada 3000 obtained protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. NAV Canada moved under s. 56(1) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act for court authorization to seize and detain certain aircraft in Canada 3000's possession. Canada 3000 made an assignment into bankruptcy. The lessors filed claims under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, seeking the return of the aircraft. The authorities moved for an order authorizing them to seize and detain the aircraft under s. 9(1) of the Airports Act. The lessors sought, inter alia, interim release of the aircraft and declarations that the authorities and NAV Canada were not entitled to seize or detain them.

The Ontario Superior Court approved protocols for the interim release of the aircraft to the lessors upon posting security for the outstanding charges. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs for complying with the protocols regardless of the ultimate disposition.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2002] O.T.C. 310, dismissed the seizure and detention motions and granted the declaratory relief sought by the lessors. The court, inter alia, ordered the authorities and NAV Canada to reimburse the lessors for their costs concerning the detention of the aircraft and the posting of security (the detention costs). In a subsequent decision, the court declined to award costs. The authorities and NAV Canada appealed. Some of the lessors appealed the portion of the release protocol order dealing with detention costs and cross-appealed the costs order.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Juriansz, J.(ad hoc), dissenting in part, allowed the appeals respecting the detention costs. The court dismissed the remaining grounds of appeal and the cross-appeal respecting costs. The court ordered a new hearing respecting the detention costs.

Aeronautics - Topic 1903

Airports - Operation of - Airport authority - Powers - Seizure and detention of aircraft - A bankrupt airline owed several airport authorities for airport services and NAV Canada for civil air navigation services - The airline had leased most of its aircraft - An airport authority could obtain an order authorizing it to seize and detain aircraft owned and operated by a person liable for unpaid airport fees and charges (Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act, s. 9) - NAV Canada could obtain the same order for unpaid charges for air navigation services (Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, s. 56) - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the remedies under ss. 9 and 56, if granted, were intended to apply to aircraft of persons having legal custody and control or who were otherwise in possession of the aircraft - They did not create rights having priority over the pre-existing interests of the lessors, the legal titleholders of the aircraft, in the face of the lessors' claim for repossession and recovery of the aircraft upon the termination of the leases - The same conclusion applied respecting leased engines - See paragraphs 120 to 191.

Aeronautics - Topic 1903

Airports - Operation of - Airport authority - Powers - Seizure and detention of aircraft - An airport authority could obtain an order authorizing it to seize and detain aircraft owned and operated by a person liable for unpaid airport fees and charges (Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act, s. 9) - NAV Canada could obtain the same order for unpaid charges for air navigation services (Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, s. 56) - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that the purpose of these provisions was to "facilitate the collection of unpaid airport and navigation charges by providing a pre- and post-judgment means of preventing the removal of aircraft from the jurisdiction by the persons who are capable of effecting their prompt removal and who are liable to pay those outstanding charges." - See paragraph 181.

Aeronautics - Topic 1903

Airports - Operation of - Airport authority - Powers - Seizure and detention of aircraft - A bankrupt airline owed several airport authorities for airport services and NAV Canada for civil air navigation services - The airline had leased most of its aircraft - The airport authorities and NAV Canada argued that the detention provisions of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act (s. 9) and the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act (s. 56) created rights in the aircraft that had priority over the lessors' rights - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the detention provisions were unambiguous and did not create rights that had priority over the lessors' rights - Further, if the detention provisions were ambiguous, they did not evidence a clear intention to rebut the presumption against the interference with or limitation of private property rights - See paragraph 192.

Aeronautics - Topic 1903

Airports - Operation of - Airport authority - Powers - Seizure and detention of aircraft - A bankrupt airline owed several airport authorities for airport services and NAV Canada for civil air navigation services - The airline had leased most of its aircraft - The airport authorities and NAV Canada argued that the detention provisions of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act (s. 9) and the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act (s. 56) created rights in the aircraft that had priority over the lessors' rights - A motions judge rejected the argument - The airport authorities and NAV Canada argued that the motions judge failed to have regard to policy considerations supporting a liberal interpretation - They claimed that they were involuntary creditors and, having regard to their statutory mandates, their interests should have been preferred - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that policy considerations concerning respective parties' economic positions could not control the meaning of the words which Parliament elected to use - Any enlargement of the meaning or reach of the provisions was a function for Parliament - See paragraphs 193 and 194.

Aeronautics - Topic 2004

Navigation services - Charges - Persons liable for - A bankrupt airline owed NAV Canada for civil air navigation services - The airline had leased most of its aircraft - Section 55(1) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act provided that "owners" and "operators" were jointly and severally liable for the charges - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that the lessors were not "owners" under s. 55(1) and were not liable for the unpaid charges - The purpose of s. 55(1) was to provide a form of statutory protection to NAV Canada for the collection of outstanding civil air navigation charges - It was not intended to assure or guarantee payment of those charges by extending liability to the legal title-holders of aircraft, such as the Lessors - "Owners" were persons having legal custody and control and persons otherwise in possession of aircraft - See paragraphs 46 to 119.

Aeronautics - Topic 2005

Navigation services - Charges - Enforcement - Seizure and detention of aircraft - [See all Aeronautics - Topic 1903 ].

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions - A bankrupt airline had outstanding service charges with several airport authorities and NAV Canada (the applicants) - The airline had leased most of its aircraft - The applicants sought an order authorizing the seizure and detention of the aircraft - A motions judge approved protocols for the interim release of the aircraft to the lessors upon posting security - He directed the parties to bear their own costs for complying with the protocols regardless of the ultimate disposition - The motions judge subsequently dismissed the detention motions - He ordered the applicants to reimburse the lessors for their detention costs - The Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a new hearing on this issue - It was not clear that the applicants had been aware that the issue was before the motions judge - Further, the motions judge did not provide reasons for the reimbursement ruling - See paragraphs 205 to 210.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - A bankrupt airline had outstanding service charges with several airport authorities and NAV Canada (the applicants) - The airline had leased most of its aircraft - The applicants sought an order authorizing the seizure and detention of the aircraft - A motions judge approved protocols for the interim release of the aircraft to the lessors upon posting security - He directed the parties to bear their own costs for complying with the protocols regardless of the ultimate disposition - The motions judge subsequently dismissed the detention motions - He ordered the applicants to reimburse the lessors for their detention costs - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the applicants' argument that, inter alia, the motions judge lacked jurisdiction to order such reimbursement because he had already adjudicated on the matter - The protocols were interim in nature and contained a preservation of rights clause - Further, the motions judge had discretion to revisit the reimbursement issue as fairness and the circumstances of the bankruptcy proceeding required - See paragraphs 200 to 204.

Practice - Topic 7029

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - Successful party - Exceptions - Novel or important point - A bankrupt airline had outstanding service charges with several airport authorities and NAV Canada (the applicants) - The airline had leased most of its aircraft - The applicants sought an order authorizing the seizure and detention of the aircraft under the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act and the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act - The lessors opposed the application - A motions judge denied the application - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the motions judge's decision not to award costs - The case raised important issues of interpretation concerning two statutes not previously considered in Ontario and, at the time of the proceedings before the motions judge, addressed only in one previously reported decision - Further, the airline's demise gave rise to issues of broad public interest beyond the parties' commercial rights - Finally, the motions were reasonable - See paragraphs 215 to 218.

Practice - Topic 7029.5

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - Successful party - Exceptions - Public interest - [See Practice - Topic 7029 ].

Practice - Topic 9228

Appeals - New trials - Grounds - Reasons for judgment insufficient - [See Courts - Topic 583 ].

Statutes - Topic 529

Interpretation - General principles - Commercial expectations - A bankrupt airline owed NAV Canada for civil air navigation services - The airline had leased most of its aircraft - Section 55(1) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act provided that "owners" and "operators" were jointly and severally liable for the charges - A motions judge held that the lessors were not "owners" under s. 55(1) and were not liable for the unpaid charges - NAV Canada argued that the motions judge's interpretation was not consistent with the parties' commercial expectation - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the parties' respective understanding of the import of the provisions of the Act did not establish Parliamentary intention concerning the meaning of those provisions or the scope of the remedies actually provided thereunder - The fact that the lessors may have envisaged potential liability did not control legislative meaning - See paragraph 117.

Statutes - Topic 530

Interpretation - General principles - Social or economic policy considerations - [See fourth Aeronautics - Topic 1903 ].

Statutes - Topic 1449

Interpretation - Construction where meaning is not plain - Aids or methods to determine meaning - Legislative history - General - Parties filed an affidavit containing evidence concerning the legislative history of two statutes that were in issue - The Ontario Court of Appeal acknowledged that legislative history was admissible as an aid to statutory interpretation and opined that "the legislative history of the enactments in issue and of the challenged statutory provisions was admissible without the necessity of sworn affidavit evidence." - See paragraph 212.

Statutes - Topic 1611

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - General - Regulations and other delegated legislation - The Ontario Court of Appeal noted that "the conventional view is that: 'Because regulations are a subordinate form of legislation, usually made after the enabling Act has been passed, they have limited value in interpreting provisions of the Act.'" - However the court stated that "This court has recognized that where regulations are closely intertwined with a statute, or were enacted contemporaneously with a statute under review by the court, the regulations may be useful interpretive tools" - See paragraphs 103 and 104.

Statutes - Topic 1641

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Legislative history - General - [See Statutes - Topic 1449 ].

Statutes - Topic 1803

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Bilingual statutes - Interpretation of both versions - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "Where two versions of a bilingual statute appear to express different things, the shared meaning rule for the interpretation of bilingual statutes requires that the meaning that is shared by both versions ought to be adopted. ... The rule is not absolute, however, and can be rejected if the meaning shared between the two statutory versions is contrary to Parliament's intention or the purpose or objects of the enactment" - See paragraph 83.

Statutes - Topic 1806

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Bilingual statutes - Interpretation of one version by reference to the other - Section 55(1) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act imposed joint and several liability on "owners" and "operators" of an aircraft for any charges imposed by NAV Canada for air navigation services - Section 55(2) provided that "owner" in s. 55(1) "includes" four enumerated categories of persons - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the French version of s. 55(2) used the word "s'entend" which translated to "means" and was used in a restrictive sense - As the word "includes" could be used in either a restrictive or an expansive sense, the shared meaning between the English and French versions was a restrictive meaning - A contextual and purposive analysis of s. 55 confirmed that the s. 55(2) definition of "owner" was intended to be restrictive - See paragraphs 70 to 84.

Statutes - Topic 2261

Interpretation - Presumptions and rules in aid - Against abridgement of proprietary rights - [See third Aeronautics - Topic 1903 ].

Statutes - Topic 2456

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Interpretation and definition clauses - Use of words "include" and "including" - [See Statutes - Topic 1806 ].

Statutes - Topic 2601

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Interpretation by context (incl. "modern rule") - General principles - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "in the search for legislative meaning, a contextual and purposive analysis of the provision in which a challenged word appears 'trumps' the application of other interpretive rules and principles." - See paragraph 74.

Words and Phrases

Includes - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "includes" as used in s. 55(2) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, S.C. 1996, c. 20 - See paragraphs 70 to 84.

Words and Phrases

Owned or operated by the person liable to pay - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of this phrase as used in s. 9 of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act, S.C. 1992, c. 5, and s. 55(1) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, S.C. 1996, c. 20 - See paragraphs 174 to 180.

Words and Phrases

Owner - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "owner" as used in s. 55(1) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, S.C. 1996, c. 20 - See paragraphs 59 to 119.

Cases Noticed:

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 867; 275 N.R. 201; 206 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 304; 618 A.P.R. 304, refd to. [para. 26].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 26].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) (2003), 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 26].

Social Services Administration Board (Parry Sound District) v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 324 et al. (2003), 308 N.R. 271; 177 O.A.C. 235; 2003 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 26].

Springhill (Town) v. McLeod (1928), 60 N.S.R. 272 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

Royal Bank v. Port Royal Pulp and Paper Co., [1937] 4 D.L.R. 254 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

O. & O. Contractors Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (1965), 56 D.L.R.(2d) 90 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Alas v. Solis (2003), 327 A.R. 192; 296 W.A.C. 192; 2003 ABCA 137, refd to. [para. 70].

Ford Credit Canada Ltd. v. Solis - see Alas v. Solis.

Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps, [1899] A.C. 99 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Loblaw Groceterias Co. (Manitoba) Ltd., [1961] S.C.R. 138, refd to. [para. 71].

Laidlaw v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 736; 20 N.R. 515, refd to. [para. 73].

Nova v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 437; 38 N.R. 381; 32 A.R. 613, refd to. [para. 73].

National Bank of Greece (Canada) et autres v. Simcoe & Erie General Assurance Co. et autres, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1029; 115 N.R. 42; 32 Q.A.C. 250, refd to. [para. 74].

National Bank of Greece (Canada) v. Katsikonouris - see National Bank of Greece (Canada) et autres v. Simcoe & Erie General Assurance Co. et autres.

Campbell Soup Co. v. Farm Products Marketing Board (Ont.) (1975), 10 O.R.(2d) 405 (H.C.), affd. (1977), 16 O.R.(2d) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

NAV Canada v. Wilmington Trust Co., [2000] J.Q. No. 5007 (S.C.), consd. [para. 78].

Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 292 N.R. 250; 164 O.A.C. 354; 2002 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Mac (M.K.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 856; 287 N.R. 75; 159 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 83].

Doré v. Verdun (Ville), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 862; 215 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 83].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 83].

Compagnie Immobiliére BCN Ltée v. Minister of National Revenue, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 865; 25 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 83].

Flota Cubana de Pesca (Cuban Fishing Fleet) et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 2 F.C. 303; 221 N.R. 356 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al. (2002), 166 O.A.C. 131; 62 O.R.(3d) 305 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted [2003] S.C.C.A. No. 42, refd to. [para. 104].

Hanlon v. Law Society, [1981] A.C. 124 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 104].

Garland v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1985] 2 F.C. 508; 63 N.R. 129 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 104].

Crupi v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1986] 3 F.C. 3; 66 N.R. 93 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 104].

Edmonton Regional Airports Authority v. Alta Flights (Charters) Inc. et al., [2003] A.R. Uned. 560; 2003 ABQB 791, refd to. [para. 132].

Winnipeg (City) v. Morguard Properties Ltd. et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 493; 50 N.R. 264; 25 Man.R.(2d) 302, refd to. [para. 137].

Bristol Airport plc v. Powdrill, [1990] Ch. 744 (C.A.), dist. [paras. 144, 247].

Royal Trust Co. v. Molsons Bank (1912), 27 O.L.R. 441 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 146].

Prete v. Lauzon and Fensom (1922), 52 O.L.R. 334 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 146].

Montreal Lithographing Ltd. v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise), [1984] 2 F.C. 22 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 146].

Hay et al. v. Mersey Docks & Harbour Board; Ship Countess, Re (1923), 14 Ll. L. Rep. 441 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 146].

Leavere v. Port Colborne (City) (1995), 79 O.A.C. 16; 22 O.R.(3d) 44 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 154].

Board of Industrial Relations (B.C.) v. Avco Financial Services Realty Ltd. and Homeplan Realty Ltd., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 699; 28 N.R. 140, refd to. [para. 156].

Dauphin Plains Credit Union Ltd. v. Xyloid Industries Ltd. and R., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1182; 31 N.R. 301; 3 Man.R.(2d) 283, refd to. [para. 156].

Phoenix Assurance Co. of Canada v. Toronto (City) (1981), 35 O.R.(2d) 16 (H.C.), affd. (1982), 39 O.R.(2d) 680 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 192].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Sparrow Electric Corp., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 411; 208 N.R. 161; 193 A.R. 321; 135 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [paras. 192, 230].

Pacific National Investments Ltd. v. Victoria (City) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 919; 263 N.R. 1; 144 B.C.A.C. 203; 236 W.A.C. 203, refd to. [para. 192].

First Vancouver Finance v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 720; 288 N.R. 347; 219 Sask.R. 185; 272 W.A.C. 185, refd to. [para. 192].

Algoma Steel Inc., Re (2003), 168 O.A.C. 89; 63 O.R.(3d) 78 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 204].

Algoma Steel Inc. v. Union Gas Ltd. - see Algoma Steel Inc., Re.

Bell Canada v. Olympia & York Developments Ltd. et al. (1994), 70 O.A.C. 101; 17 O.R.(3d) 135 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 216].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325, refd to. [para. 216].

Mete et al. v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada (1998), 117 O.A.C. 26; 165 D.L.R.(4th) 457 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 216].

Ortiz v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. (2001), 139 O.A.C. 180; 52 O.R.(3d) 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 217].

Statutes Noticed:

Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act, S.C. 1992 c. 5, sect. 9 [paras. 120; 233].

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, S.C. 1996, c. 20, sect. 55 [para. 46]; sect. 56 [paras. 120, 233].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Dubin Commission of Inquiry on Aviation Safety (1981), generally [para. 109].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (April 15, 1985), pp. 3728 to 3730 [para. 109].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (June 20, 1985), pp. 6065, 6066 [para. 110].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (June 3, 1991), p. 942 [para. 40].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (June 18, 1992), pp. 12429, 12431 [para. 170].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (March 25, 1996), pp. 1153, 1154 [para. 32].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (May 15, 1996), pp. 2821 [paras. 33, 35]; 2834 [para. 35].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (May 29, 1996), pp. 3143, 3144 [para. 35].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (June 4, 1996), pp. 3394, 3410, 3413 [para. 35].

Canada, Hansard, Senate Debates (June 10, 1996), pp. 588, 589 [paras. 34, 35]; 590 [para. 100].

Canada, Hanard, Senate Debates (June 19, 1996), p. 762 [para. 34].

Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Transport, Proceedings of (May 7, 1985), p. 1045, Appendix TRPT-3, 9A:3, 9A:8 [para. 110].

Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, Proceedings of (June 15, 1992), p. 23:41 [para. 171].

Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), pp. 328, 329 [para. 83].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, Senate Debates.

Megarry, R.E., and Wade, H.W.R., The Law of Real Property (6th Ed. 2000), para. 19-002 [para. 153].

Sullivan, Ruth, Statutory Interpretation (1997), pp. 168 [para. 224]; 169 [paras. 224, 225, 227].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 10 [para. 139]; 51 to 55 [para. 74]; 80, 81 to 86, 87 [para. 83]; 162, 163 [para. 178]; 181, 182 [para. 86]; 282 [para. 103]; 400 to 403 [para. 192].

Ziff, Bruce, Principles of Property Law (3rd Ed. 2000), p. 408 [para. 153].

Counsel:

Lyndon A.J. Barnes and Donald D. Hanna, for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority;

John T. Porter and Alan B. Merskey, for the appellants, Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc. et al., listed in Schedule "A" hereto;

Clifton P. Prophet and Eric B. Wredenhagen, for NAV Canada;

Richard A. Conway and Linda M. Plumpton, for the respondents, International Lease Finance Corporation et al., listed in Schedule "B" hereto;

David P. Chernos, for U.S. Airways, Inc.;

Christopher W. Besant and Joseph J. Bellisimo, for G.E. Capital Aviation Services, Inc. as agent and manager for Polaris Holding Company and AFT Trust-Sub I, Pegasus Aviation, Inc., and PALS I, Inc.;

Barbara L. Grossman, for Ansett Worldwide Aviation, U.S.A. and MSA V;

Pamela J. Huff and Jill M. Lawrie, for C.I.T. Leasing Corporation and NBB-Royal Lease Partnership One;

Craig J. Hill, for GATX/CL Air Leasing Cooperative Association;

Kenneth D. Kraft, for RRPF Engine Leasing Ltd.;

V. Ross Morrison, for Flight Logistics Inc.;

Steven J. Weisz, for Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

These appeals and cross-appeals were heard on June 24, 25 and 26, 2003, by Abella and Cronk, JJ.A., and Juriansz, J.(ad hoc), of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was released on January 20, 2004, and the following opinions were filed:

Cronk, J.A. (Abella, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 221;

Juriansz, J.(ad hoc), dissenting in part - see paragraphs 222 to 266.