Canada 3000 Inc. (Bankrupt), Re, (2006) 212 O.A.C. 338 (SCC)

• Judge: LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 09, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 212 O.A.C. 338 (SCC);2006 SCC 24;[2006] SCJ No 24 (QL);212 OAC 339;[2006] ACS no 24;349 NR 1;269 DLR (4th) 79;20 CBR (5th) 1;JE 2006-1215;[2006] 1 SCR 865

Can. 3000 Inc. (Bankrupt), Re (2006), 212 O.A.C. 338 (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: [2006] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.088

NAV Canada et al. (appellants/respondents on cross-appeals) v. International Lease Finance Corporation et al. (respondents/appellants on cross-appeals)

NAV Canada (appellant) v. Wilmington Trust Company et al. (respondents)

NAV Canada (appellant) v. G.I.E. Avions de transport régional et al. (respondents)

NAV Canada (appellant) v. Inter-Canadian (1991) Inc. et al. (respondents)

Aéroports de Montréal (appellant) v. Wilmington Trust Company et al. (respondents)

Greater Toronto Airports Authority (appellant) v. Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority et al. (respondents)

Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority (appellant) v. Wilmington Trust Company et al. (respondents)

Aéroports de Montréal (appellant) v. Renaissance Leasing Corporation et al. (respondents)

Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority (appellant) v. Renaissance Leasing Corporation et al. (respondents)

Aéroports de Montréal (appellant) v. Newcourt Credit Group (Alberta) Inc. et al. (respondents)

St. John's International Airport Authority et al. (appellants) v. Newcourt Credit Group (Alberta) Inc. et al. (respondents)

Greater Toronto Airports Authority (appellant) v. Greater London International Airport Authority et al. (respondents)

Greater Toronto Airports Authority (appellant) v. Renaissance Leasing Corporation et al. (respondents)

Greater Toronto Airports Authority (appellant) v. Newcourt Credit Group (Alberta) Inc. et al. (respondents) Canada Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority (appellant) v. Wilmington Trust Company et al. (respondents)

St. John's International Airport Authority (appellant) v. Newcourt Credit Group (Alberta) Inc. et al. (respondents)

Charlottetown Airport Authority Inc. (appellant) v. CCG Trust Corporation et al. (respondents)

(30214; 30729; 30730; 30731; 30732; 30738; 30740; 30742; 30743; 30745; 30749; 30750; 30751; 2006 SCC 24; 2006 CSC 24)

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

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie,

LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Charron, JJ.

June 9, 2006.

Summary:

Canada 3000

Canada 3000, a company which operated an airline, financially collapsed while owing outstanding navigation services charges to NAV Canada and several airport authorities. NAV Canada moved under s. 56(1) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act (CANSCA) for court authorization to seize and detain certain aircraft in Canada 3000's possession. The airport authorities moved for a similar order under s. 9(1) of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act (Airports Act). Despite the existence of legal titleholders (e.g., lessors), all of the aircraft were registered in the name of Canada 3000 as owner under the Aeronautics Act. The legal titleholders sought the return of the aircraft and declarations that the airport authorities and NAV Canada were not entitled to seize or detain them.

The Ontario Superior Court allowed the interim release of the aircraft to the legal titleholders upon posting security for the outstanding charges. Subsequently, in a decision reported at [2002] O.T.C. 310, the motions judge dismissed NAV Canada's and the airport authorities' seizure and detention motions. The judge held that the legal titleholders were not jointly and severally liable for the charges owed to NAV Canada under s. 55 of CANSCA because they were not "owners" within the meaning of the Act. Further, the judge concluded that the seizure and detention remedies found in CANSCA and the Airports Act did not create a lien or security interest that ranked in priority to the rights of the legal titleholders to repossess the aircraft. NAV Canada and the airport authorities appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Juriansz, J.(ad hoc), dissenting in part, in a decision reported 183 O.A.C. 201, upheld that motions judge's decision. NAV Canada and the authorities appealed. The legal titleholders cross-appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals in part, dismissed the legal titleholders' cross-appeals and returned the seizure and detention applications to the motions judge to be dealt with in accordance with the court's reasons for judgment. The court agreed with the courts below that the legal titleholders were not subject to liability to pay the unpaid charges under the CANSCA because they were not "owners" within the meaning of s. 55(1). However, the statutory seizure and detention remedies in s. 56 of CANSCA and s. 9 of the Airports Act took priority over the titleholders' rights to repossession under their leases. Therefore, NAV Canada and the authorities were entitled to seek judicially authorized seize and detain orders to be exercised against the security posted in substitution for the aircraft. The court noted that the authorities' and NAV Canada's remedies, if an order was granted, were purely statutory and were limited to possession. Simple possession under the statutes did not confer any interest in the beneficial ownership of the aircraft. The court stated that the authorities' and NAV Canada's claim to the equivalent of a maritime lien was not well founded, nor did they have any "implied" power to sell the aircraft once detained. The court stated that they got what the statute said, i.e., a right to apply for a judicial order to seize and detain the aircraft until payment - no more, and no less.

Inter-Canadian

Inter-Canadian operated a fleet of aircraft under leasing agreements with legal titleholders, but was registered as owner under the Aeronautics Act. Inter-Canadian ceased operations at a time when it owed outstanding charges to NAV Canada and airport authorities. The airport authorities and NAV Canada moved to seize and detain a number of the aircraft under s. 9 of the Airports Act and s. 56 of CANSCA respectively.

The Quebec Superior Court granted the seizure and detention orders. Thereafter, Inter-Canadian was placed into bankruptcy. Faced with the legal titleholders' claims that they were entitled to repossession of the aircraft, the trustee in bankruptcy sought directions.

The Quebec Superior Court released the aircraft on the posting of security by the airport authorities and NAV Canada. Then on the merits, the motions judge, in a decision reported [2002] R.J.Q. 2935, confirmed the validity of the detention and also held the legal titleholders jointly liable for the amounts owing to NAV Canada under s. 55 of CANSCA. The motions judge relied on arts. 1592 and 1593 of the Civil Code of Quebec and determined that the authorities' right of retention of the aircraft took priority over the lessor's interests. The legal titleholders appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, Nuss, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal, holding that the legal titleholders' right to possession took priority and they were entitled to the return of their aircraft free and clear of the unpaid charges. The court rejected the motions judge's resort to the Civil Code. NAV Canada and the airport authorities appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, allowed the appeals in part and returned the seizure and detention applications to the motions judge to be dealt with in accordance with the judgment reported below.

Aeronautics - Topic 1903

Airports - Operation of - Airport authority - Powers - Seizure and detention of aircraft - Two airlines financially collapsed while owing several airport authorities for airport services and NAV Canada for civil air navigation services - The airlines had leased most of their aircraft, therefore legal titleholders such as lessors were involved -NAV Canada sought orders authorizing it to seize and detain aircraft for outstanding air navigation service charges (Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act (CANSCA), s. 56) - The airport authorities sought a similar order respecting unpaid airport fees and charges (Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act (Airports Act), s. 9) - The legal titleholders argued that their repossession rights under their leases should take priority over these statutory seizure and detention remedies, especially if the legal titleholders were found not to be "owners" of the aircraft liable for the navigation fees under s. 55 of CANSCA - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the statutory remedies took priority - The detention remedies were for possession only until payment was made to the service providers and did not affect the titleholders' ultimate title - The court agreed that as long as the aircraft were owned or operated by persons liable to pay the outstanding charges they could be the subject of a seizure and detention application - The fact that there might be other persons who were not liable to pay the outstanding charges but who had property interests in the aircraft (such as the lessors) was of no consequence - See paragraphs 62 to 75.

Aeronautics - Topic 1903

Airports - Operation of - Airport authority - Powers - Seizure and detention of aircraft - Section 55(1) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act (CANSCA) provided that "owners" and "operators" of aircraft were jointly and severally liable for the air navigation service charges - Section 56 allowed NAV Canada to obtain an order authorizing it to seize and detain aircraft owned and operated by a person liable for air navigation service charges - A similar seizure and detention remedy was available for airport authorities for unpaid airport fees under s. 9 of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act (Airports Act) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the key difference between the joint and several liability provisions in s. 55 of CANSCA and the detention remedy provided for in s. 56 of CANSCA and s. 9 of the Airports Act was that the seizure and detention remedy was available against the aircraft - Whereas s. 55 identified a group of persons who were made legally liable for the amounts owing, the detention remedy had a different focus - It provided for a right to possess aircraft until the debt was paid or security provided - See paragraph 68.

Aeronautics - Topic 1903

Airports - Operation of - Airport authority - Powers - Seizure and detention of aircraft - Section 56 of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act (CANSCA) allowed NAV Canada to obtain an order authorizing it to seize and detain aircraft owned and operated by a person liable for air navigation service charges - Section 9 of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act (Airports Act), provided a similar remedy for airport authorities - The Quebec Superior Court held that the seizure and detention provisions created a right similar to that found in arts. 1592 and 1593 of the Civil Code of Québec - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no need to make reference to provincial law or, more specifically, to the Civil Code, and to do so here was inappropriate - Both s. 56 of CANSCA and s. 9 of the Airports Act specifically stated that the remedy was to be "in addition to any other remedy", which included remedies under provincial law - See paragraphs 78 to 82.

Aeronautics - Topic 1903

Airports - Operation of - Airport authority - Powers - Seizure and detention of aircraft - Section 56 of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act (CANSCA) allowed NAV Canada to obtain an order authorizing it to seize and detain aircraft owned and operated by a person liable for air navigation service charges - Section 9 of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act (Airports Act) provided a similar remedy for airport authorities - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected an argument that the existence of a seizure and detention implied a power of sale in this case in favour of NAV Canada or the airport authorities - The court stated that no such power was contained in CANSCA or the Airports Act - Nor was it necessarily implied in the creation of a power to seize and detain - The only claim that the authorities had under federal aeronautics law was the claim to possession of the aircraft until their user charges were paid - See paragraph 83.

Aeronautics - Topic 1903

Airports - Operation of - Airport authority - Powers - Seizure and detention of aircraft - Section 56 of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act (CANSCA) allowed NAV Canada to obtain an order authorizing it to seize and detain aircraft owned and operated by a person liable for air navigation service charges - Section 9 of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act (Airports Act) provided a similar remedy for airport authorities - The Supreme Court of Canada held that these statutory remedies took priority over the rights of lessors (i.e., legal titleholders) - The court held that the presumption against interference with private rights (i.e., a strict construction) was not applicable in interpreting this legislation because there was no ambiguity in the statutory language creating the detention remedy - See paragraph 84.

Aeronautics - Topic 1903

Airports - Operation of - Airport authority - Powers - Seizure and detention of aircraft - Section 56 of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act allowed NAV Canada to obtain an order authorizing it to seize and detain aircraft owned and operated by a person liable for air navigation service charges - Section 9 of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act (Airports Act) provided a similar remedy for airport authorities - The Supreme Court of Canada held that these statutory remedies took priority over the rights of legal titleholders such as lessors - The court rejected an argument that if titleholders had to actually pay the outstanding charges to recover a seized aircraft, then they should only be required to pay the charges incurred by the individual aircraft sought to be released - Rather, the court stated that since ss. 9 and 56 did not distinguish between the amounts accumulated by specific aircraft operated by a defaulting owner or operator, it seemed clear that the amount in respect of which the seizure was made was the entire amount owed by that registered owner or operator - See paragraphs 85 and 86.

Aeronautics - Topic 1903

Airports - Operation of - Airport authority - Powers - Seizure and detention of aircraft - Section 56 of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act allowed NAV Canada to obtain an order authorizing it to seize and detain aircraft owned and operated by a person liable for air navigation service charges - Section 9 of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act (Airports Act) provided a similar remedy for airport authorities - The Supreme Court of Canada held that these statutory remedies took priority over the rights of legal titleholders such as lessors - The court rejected an argument by engine lessors that they should be entitled to repossess their engines notwithstanding the seizure and detention provisions because a seizure of the aircraft was not a seizure of the engines - See paragraphs 87 to 89.

Aeronautics - Topic 1903

Airports - Operation of - Airport authority - Powers - Seizure and detention of aircraft - Section 56 of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act allowed NAV Canada to obtain an order authorizing it to seize and detain aircraft owned and operated by a person liable for air navigation service charges - Section 9 of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act (Airports Act) provided a similar remedy for airport authorities - The Supreme Court of Canada held that these statutory remedies took priority over the rights of legal titleholders such as lessors - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that sub-lessors stood in no better position than the legal titleholders and aircraft in which they had a leasehold interest were subject to seizure - See paragraph 90.

Aeronautics - Topic 1903

Airports - Operation of - Airport authority - Powers - Seizure and detention of aircraft - Section 56 of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act allowed NAV Canada to obtain an order authorizing it to seize and detain aircraft owned and operated by a person liable for air navigation service charges - Section 9 of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act (Airports Act) provided a similar remedy for airport authorities - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the role of the motions judge on these types of applications, noting that Parliament had left the door open for the motions judge to work out an arrangement that was fair and reasonable to all concerned, provided that the object and purpose of the remedy (to ensure the unpaid user fees were paid) was fulfilled - See paragraphs 90 to 92.

Aeronautics - Topic 1903

Airports - Operation of - Airport authority - Powers - Seizure and detention of aircraft - Section 56 of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act allowed NAV Canada to obtain an order authorizing it to seize and detain aircraft owned and operated by a person liable for air navigation service charges - Section 9 of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act (Airports Act) provided a similar remedy for airport authorities - The Supreme Court of Canada held that these statutory seizure and detention orders took priority over the rights of legal titleholders such as lessors - NAV Canada and the airport authorities had authority to charge interest - Where aircraft were seized, interest continued to run to the first date of payment, the posting of security by the owner, operator or titleholder, or bankruptcy - See paragraphs 93 to 97.

Aeronautics - Topic 2004

Navigation services - Charges - Persons liable for - Two airlines financially collapsed while owing NAV Canada for civil air navigation service charges - The airlines leased most of their aircraft, thus there were lessors or legal titleholders involved - Section 55(1) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act provided that "owners" and "operators" of aircraft were jointly and severally liable for the charges - At issue was whether "owner" in s. 55(1) included legal titleholders such as lessors - The Supreme Court of Canada, applying a contextual and purposive approach to statutory interpretation, interpreted s. 55 narrowly - The court affirmed that the lessors or legal titleholders were not "owners" within the meaning of s. 55(1) and were therefore not jointly and severally liable for the charges due to NAV Canada - The court stated that Parliament intended to create a "user-pay" scheme for civil air navigation services and that the only "users" of the civil air navigation services within the contemplation of the Act were the airlines, not the legal titleholders - See paragraphs 41 to 61.

Aeronautics - Topic 2004

Navigation services - Charges - Persons liable for - Section 55(1) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act provided that "owners" and "operators" of aircraft were jointly and severally liable for air navigation service charges - At issue was whether "owner" included legal titleholders such as lessors - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that if s. 55(1) were read in isolation, the ordinary and grammatical meaning of "owner" would include the legal titleholder - However, the court noted that it was required to consider the "entire context" of a provision before it could determine if it was reasonably capable of multiple interpretations - It was necessary for the court in interpreting a provision to undertake a contextual and purposive approach as set out by Driedger in Construction of Statutes and thereafter to determine if the words were ambiguous - See paragraphs 44 and 45.

Aeronautics - Topic 2004

Navigation services - Charges - Persons liable for - Section 55(1) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act provided that "owners" and "operators" of aircraft were jointly and severally liable for navigation charges - Section 55(2) provided that for purposes of s. 55(1), "owner" with respect to an aircraft "includes" four enumerated groups - At issue was whether "owner" in s. 55(1) included legal titleholders such as lessors - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the statutory context favoured a restrictive interpretation of the word "includes" in s. 55(2) for three reasons: (1) since the French version signalled a closed list by the use of the word "s'entend" and the English version was ambiguous indicating that the list could be exhaustive or expansive depending on the context, the common meaning favoured the more restricted limited meaning; (2) interpreting the list enumerated in s. 55(2) as exhaustive of ownership for the purposes of s. 55(1) was consistent with the regulatory scheme as a whole and its legislative history; and (3) exclusion of legal titleholders was consistent with Parliament's manifest intent to limit the scope of liability to "users" of NAV Canada's civil air navigation services - See paragraphs 46 to 53.

Aeronautics - Topic 2004

Navigation services - Charges - Persons liable for - Section 55(1) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act provided that "owners" and "operators" of aircraft were jointly and severally liable for navigation charges - Section 55(2) provided that for purposes of s. 55(1), "owner" with respect to an aircraft "includes" four enumerated groups - At issue was whether "owner" in s. 55(1) included legal titleholders such as lessors - The Supreme Court of Canada, considering the broader legislative framework in interpreting s. 55(1), stated that the policy and practice throughout the federal regulatory scheme was to use the term "owner" to refer to the person in legal custody and control of the aircraft, not the legal titleholder - See paragraphs 54 to 56.

Aeronautics - Topic 2004

Navigation services - Charges - Persons liable for - Section 55(1) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act provided that "owners" and "operators" of aircraft were jointly and severally liable for navigation charges - Section 55(2) provided that for purposes of s. 55(1), "owner" with respect to an aircraft "includes" four enumerated groups - At issue was whether "owner" in s. 55(1) included legal titleholders such as lessors - The Supreme Court of Canada, in considering the legislative history of s. 55(1), noted that although it had limited weight, Hansard evidence could assist in determining the background and purpose of legislation - In this case, it confirmed Parliament's apparent intention to exclude legal titleholders from personal liability for air navigation charges - See paragraphs 57 to 59.

Aeronautics - Topic 2004

Navigation services - Charges - Persons liable for - [See second Aeronautics - Topic 1903 ].

Aeronautics - Topic 2005

Navigation services - Charges - Enforcement (incl. seizure and detention of aircraft) - Section 56 of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act (CANSCA) allowed NAV Canada to obtain an order authorizing it to seize and detain aircraft owned and operated by a person liable for air navigation service charges - An issue arose as to whether the detention remedy in s. 56 created a lien - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the claim to the airborne equivalent of a maritime lien was not well founded - The court stated that "... as the English Court of Appeal commented in Mersey Docks, there was no need for the port authority 'to ... make some claim to a lien' ... Nor is it necessary here. In this case, as in Mersey Docks, the remedy is purely a creature of statute. Whether or not a lien could be said to arise by operation of law is perhaps of theoretical interest but it has no practical bearing on the result in these appeals" - See paragraphs 10 and 76.

Aeronautics - Topic 2005

Navigation services - Charges - Enforcement (incl. seizure and detention of aircraft) - [See all Aeronautics - Topic 1903 ].

Statutes - Topic 1644

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Legislative history - Legislative debates - [See fifth Aeronautics - Topic 2004 ].

Statutes - Topic 1803

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Bilingual statutes - Interpretation of both versions (incl. where versions conflict) - [See third Aeronautics - Topic 2004 ].

Statutes - Topic 1806

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Bilingual statutes - Interpretation of one version by reference to the other - [See third Aeronautics - Topic 2004 ].

Statutes - Topic 2261

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

Statutes - Topic 2456

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Interpretation and definition clauses - Use of words "include" and "including" - [See third Aeronautics - Topic 2004 ].

Statutes - Topic 2601

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Interpretation by context (incl. "modern rule") - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the notion that a statute is to be interpreted in light of the problem it was intended to address is as old at least as the 16th century; see Heydon's Case ... In a more modern and elaborate formulation, it is said that 'the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament' (E.A. Driedger, Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983) ..." - See paragraph 36.

Statutes - Topic 2601

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Interpretation by context (incl. "modern rule") - General principles - [See second Aeronautics - Topic 2004 ].

Statutes - Topic 2603

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Interpretation by context (incl. "modern rule") - Intention from whole of section or statute - [See third Aeronautics - Topic 2004 ].

Statutes - Topic 2609

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Interpretation by context (incl. "modern rule") - Variation of language - [See third Aeronautics - Topic 2004 ].

Statutes - Topic 2614

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Interpretation by context (incl. "modern rule") - Legislative context - [See third Aeronautics - Topic 2004 ].

Words and Phrases

Includes - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "includes" as was used in s. 55(2) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, S.C. 1996, c. 20 - See paragraph 48.

Words and Phrases

Owner - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "owner" as it was used in s. 55(1) of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, S.C. 1996, c. 20 - See paragraphs 41 to 61.

Cases Noticed:

Pan American World Airways Inc. et al. v. Canada, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 565; 41 N.R. 230, refd to. [para. 4].

Heydon's Case (1584), 3 Co. Rep. 7a; 76 E.R. 637, refd to. [para. 36].

Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada v. Hepworth Silica Pressed Brick Co. (1915), 51 S.C.R. 81, refd to. [para. 37].

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; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 44].

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533; 334 N.R. 55; 2005 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 45].

Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps, [1899] A.C. 99 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Loblaw Groceteria Co. (Manitoba) Ltd., [1961] S.C.R. 138, refd to. [para. 47].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 49].

Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 269; 292 N.R. 250; 164 O.A.C. 354; 2002 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 49].

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; 2001 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 54].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 57].

Feigelman et al. v. Aetna Financial Services Ltd., Lax and Burke, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 2; 56 N.R. 241; 32 Man.R.(2d) 241, refd to. [para. 69].

Mersey Docks - see Ship Emilie Millon, Re.

Ship Emilie Millon, Re, [1905] 2 K.B. 817 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 71].

Channel Airways Ltd. v. Manchester Corp., [1974] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 456 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 71].

Peoples Department Stores Inc. (Bankrupt) v. Wise, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 461; 326 N.R. 267; 2004 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 80].

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. [para. 84].

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. of Canada v. Industrial Acceptance Corp., [1971] S.C.R. 357, refd to. [para. 87].

Bank of America Canada v. Mutual Trust Co. et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 601; 287 N.R. 171; 159 O.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 94].

Statutes Noticed:

Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act, S.C. 1992, c. 5, sect. 9 [para. 66].

Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, S.C. 1996, c. 20, sect. 55(1) [para. 41]; sect. 55(2) [para. 46]; sect. 56 [para. 65].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 8.2 [para. 81].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bunker, Donald H., Canadian Aviation Finance Legislation (1989), p. 764 [para. 56].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 133, 2nd sess., 35th Parliament (March 25, 1996), p. 1154 [para. 57].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 134, 2nd sess., 35th Parliament (May 15, 1996), p. 2834 [para. 57].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 134, 2nd sess., 35th Parliament (May 29, 1996), p. 3144 [para. 57].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 134, 2nd sess., 35th Parliament (June 4, 1996), pp. 3394, 3410 [para. 57].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 4, 1st sess., 33th Parliament (June 20, 1985), pp. 6065, 6066 [para. 58].

Canada, Senate, Debates of the Senate, vol. 135, 2nd sess., 35th Parliament (June 10, 1996), pp. 588, 589 [para. 57].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 36].

Driedger - see Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes.

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

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 79 to 90 [para. 49].

Uniform Law Conference of Canada, Drafting Conventions of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, s. 21(4) [para. 49].

Counsel:

Clifton P. Prophet and Eric Wredenhagen, for NAV Canada (30214);

Lyndon A.J. Barnes and Jean-Marc Leclerc, for Greater Toronto Airports Authority (30214);

John T. Porter and Alan B. Merskey, for Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc., Halifax International Airport Authority, Edmonton Regional Airports Authority, Calgary Airport Authority, Aéroports de Montréal, Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority, Vancouver International Airport Authority and St. John's International Airport Authority (30214);

Richard A. Conway, David P. Chernos, Linda M. Plumpton and Jana N. Stettner, for 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. and U.S. Airways Inc. (30214);

Christopher W. Besant and Joseph J. Bellissimo, 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. (30214);

Barbara L. Grossman and Christopher D. Woodbury, for Ansett Worldwide Aviation, U.S.A., and MSA V (30214);

Kenneth D. Kraft, for RRPF Engine Leasing Limited and Flight Logistics Inc. (30214);

Pamela L.J. Huff and Jill Lawrie, for C.I.T. Leasing Corporation and NBB-Royal Lease Partnership One (30214);

Written submissions only by Craig J. Hill and Roger Jaipargas, for GATX/CL Air Leasing Cooperative Association (30214);

Michel G. Ménard, for NAV Canada (30729, 30730, 30731, 30732);

Richard L. Desgagnés and Véronique E. Marquis, for Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority, St-John's International Airport Authority and Charlottetown Airport Authority Inc. (30731, 30732, 30742, 30749, 30750, 30751);

Gerald N. Apostolatos, for Aéroports de Montréal (30731, 30732, 30738, 30740, 30742);

Sandra Abitan, David Tardif-Latourelle and Allon Pollack, for Greater Toronto Airports Authority (30731, 30732, 30742, 30743, 30745);

Bertrand Giroux, Markus Koehnen, Jeff Gollob, Jason Murphy, Jean Yves Fortin and Geneviève Bergeron, for Wilmington Trust Company, Wilmington Trust Corporation, Renaissance Leasing Corporation, Heather Leasing Corporation, G.I.E. Avions de transport régional and ATR Marketing Inc. (30729, 30730, 30731, 30732, 30738, 30740, 30742, 30743, 30745, 30749, 30750);

Pierre Bourque and Eugene Czolij, for Newcourt Credit Group (Alberta) Inc., Canada Life Assurance Company and CCG Trust Corporation (30740, 30742, 30745, 30750, 30751);

No one appeared for Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Inter-Canadian (1991) Inc., Ernst & Young Inc., in its capacity as trustee for the bankruptcy of Inter-Canadian (1991) Inc., Greater London International Airport Authority, Saint John Airport Inc., Canadian Regional Airlines Ltd. and Canadian Regional (1998) Ltd.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Toronto, Ontario, for NAV Canada (30214);

Osler Hoskin & Harcourt, Toronto, Ontario, for Greater Toronto Airports Authority (30214);

Ogilvy Renault, Toronto, Ontario, for Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc., Halifax International Airport Authority, Edmonton Regional Airports Authority, Calgary Airport Authority, Aéroports de Montréal, Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority, Vancouver International Airport Authority and St. John's International Airport Authority (30214);

Torys, Toronto, Ontario, for 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. and U.S. Airways Inc. (30214);

Cassels Brock & Blackwell, Toronto, Ontario, 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. (30214);

Fraser Milner Casgrain, Toronto, Ontario, for Ansett Worldwide Aviation, U.S.A., and MSA V (30214);

Heenan Blaikie, Toronto, Ontario, for RRPF Engine Leasing Limited (30214);

Morrison Brown Sosnovitch, Toronto, Ontario, for Flight Logistics Inc. (30214);

Blake Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for C.I.T. Leasing Corporation and NBB-Royal Lease Partnership One (30214);

Borden Ladner Gervais, Toronto, Ontario, for GATX/CL Air Leasing Cooperative Association (30214);

Lapointe Rosenstein, Montréal, Quebec, for NAV Canada (30729, 30730, 30731, 30732);

Ogilvy Renault, Montréal, Quebec, for Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority, St-John's International Airport Authority and Charlottetown Airport Authority Inc. (30731, 30732, 30742, 30749, 30750, 30751);

Langlois Kronström Desjardins, Montréal, Quebec, for Aéroports de Montréal (30731, 30732, 30738, 30740, 30742);

Osler Hoskin & Harcourt, Montréal, Quebec, for Greater Toronto Airports Authority (30731, 30732, 30742, 30743, 30745);

Brouillette Charpentier Fortin, Montréal, Quebec, for Wilmington Trust Company, Wilmington Trust Corporation, Renaissance Leasing Corporation, Heather Leasing Corporation, G.I.E. Avions de transport régional and ATR Marketing Inc.,  (30729,   30730, 30731, 30732, 30738, 30740, 30742, 30743, 30745, 30749, 30750);

Desjardins Ducharme Stein Monast, Montréal, Quebec, for Newcourt Credit Group (Alberta) Inc., Canada Life Assurance Company and CCG Trust Corporation (30740, 30742, 30745, 30750, 30751);

Blake Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (30214);

Kugler Kandestin, Montréal, Quebec, for Inter-Canadian (1991) Inc. and Ernst & Young Inc., in its capacity as trustee for the bankruptcy of Inter-Canadian (1991) Inc. (30730, 30731, 30732, 30738, 30740, 30742, 30743, 30745, 30749, 30750, 30751);

Ogilvy Renault, Montréal, Quebec, for Greater London International Airport Authority and Saint John Airport Inc. (30742);

Fraser Milner Casgrain, Montréal, Quebec, for Canadian Regional Airlines Ltd. and Canadian Regional (1998) Ltd. (30742).

These appeals were heard on January 16-17, 2006, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision of the court was delivered in both official languages by Binnie, J., on June 9, 2006.