Enbridge Gas New Brunswick Limited Partnership et al. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), 2013 NBCA 34

• Judge: Robertson, Richard and Bell, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: February 18, 2013
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: 2013 NBCA 34;(2013), 404 N.B.R.(2d) 189 (CA)

Enbridge Gas v. N.B. (A.G.) (2013), 404 N.B.R.(2d) 189 (CA);

    404 R.N.-B.(2e) 189; 1048 A.P.R. 189

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.001

Renvoi temp.: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.001

Enbridge Gas New Brunswick Limited Partnership, Enbridge Energy Distribution Inc. and Enbridge Inc. (appellants) v. The Attorney General in and for the Province of New Brunswick (respondent)

(122-12-CA; 2013 NBCA 34)

Indexed As: Enbridge Gas New Brunswick Limited Partnership et al. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General)

Répertorié: Enbridge Gas New Brunswick Limited Partnership et al. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General)

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Robertson, Richard and Bell, JJ.A.

May 3, 2013.

Summary:

Résumé:

Enbridge Gas et al. (the applicants) applied for a declaration that s. 4(1) of Regulation 2012-49 under the Gas Distribution Act, 1999 (N.B.) was invalid as being ultra vires.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 392 N.B.R.(2d) 363; 1016 A.P.R. 363, dismissed the application. Section 4(1) of the Regulation was intra vires. The applicants appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and declared that that part of s. 4(1) of the Regulation dealing with the "revenue to cost ratio" was beyond the regulation-making authority of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

Administrative Law - Topic 9069

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Energy and utility boards -The applicants challenged s. 4(1) of the Rates and Tariffs Regulation - Gas Distribution Act, 1999 (N.B.) as being ultra vires - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal discussed the way in which the underlying interpretative issue had reached the court - Rather than raising the issue before the Energy and Utilities Board and asking for its interpretation of the legislation, the applicants went directly to the Court of Queen's Bench and asked for a declaration of invalidity - That was not the procedure the Energy and Utilities Board Act normally envisaged for dealing with interpretative issues - The route taken by the applicants not only bypassed the relative expertise of the Board but also the application of the deference doctrine - In future, when an application for declaratory relief, such as the present one, was brought directly to the courts, the onus should be on the person seeking the relief to persuade the Court of Queen's Bench why the scheme outlined in the Energy and Utilities Board Act should be bypassed - See paragraphs 14 to 16.

Statutes - Topic 5367

Operation and effect - Delegated legislation - Regulations - Validity of - Ultra vires - Whether purpose authorized by empowering statute - Section 52(5) of the Gas Distribution Act (N.B.), provided that, in approving or fixing just and reasonable rates and tariffs, the Energy and Utilities Board (N.B.) "shall adopt the methods or techniques prescribed by regulation" - Section 95(1) empowered the Lieutenant-Governor in Council (LGC) to make regulations "(m.2) prescribing the methods or techniques the Board shall adopt when approving or fixing rates and tariffs and the methods or techniques may vary for different prescribed classes of customers; ... (m.6) respecting the transition from a market based method or technique of approving or fixing just and reasonable rates and tariffs to a method or technique based strictly upon cost of service" - Section 4(1) of Regulation 2012-49 under the Act instructed the Board to "adopt the cost of service method or technique with a revenue to cost ratio not exceeding 1.2:1..." - Enbridge Gas challenged s. 4(1) of Regulation 2012-49 as being ultra vires the Act - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal declared that that part of s. 4(1) of the Regulation dealing with the "revenue to cost ratio" was beyond the regulation-making authority of the LGC - As the Act presently read, it was for the Board to determine what the ratio should be - See paragraphs 1 to 13.

Droit administratif - Cote 9069

Commissions et tribunaux administratifs - Compétence de commissions et tribunaux particuliers - Offices de l'énergie et des services publics - [Voir Administrative Law - Topic 9069 ].

Législation - Cote 5367

Application et effet - Législation déléguée - Règlements - Validité - Ultra vires - Le but du règlement est-il autorisé par la loi habilitante? - [Voir Statutes - Topic 5367 ].

Cases Noticed:

Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. R. - see/voir Irving Oil Ltd., Canaport Ltd., Kent Lines Ltd. and Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. National Harbours Board.

Irving Oil Ltd., Canaport Ltd., Kent Lines Ltd. and Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. National Harbours Board, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 106; 46 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 4].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 7].

New Brunswick v. Rothmans Inc. et al. (2010), 357 N.B.R.(2d) 160; 923 A.P.R. 160; 2010 NBCA 35, leave to appeal refused (2010), 405 N.R. 392 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Lévesque v. New Brunswick et al. (2011), 372 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 961 A.P.R. 202; 2011 NBCA 48, refd to. [para. 7].

LeBlanc v. Doucet et al. (2012), 394 N.B.R.(2d) 228; 1020 A.P.R. 228; 2012 NBCA 88, refd to. [para. 7].

Irving (J.D.) Ltd. (Sussex Sawmill) v. Douthwright et al. (2012), 386 N.B.R.(2d) 241; 999 A.P.R. 241; 2012 NBCA 35, refd to. [para. 7].

Canada Post Corp. v. Carroll et al. (2012), 383 N.B.R.(2d) 326; 991 A.P.R. 326; 2012 NBCA 18, refd to. [para. 7].

Robichaud v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2013), 398 N.B.R.(2d) 259; 1032 A.P.R. 259; 2013 NBCA 3, refd to. [para. 7].

Royal Trust Corp. of Canada et al. v. Law Society of Alberta (1985), 66 A.R. 76 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. v. Alberta et al. (2001), 285 A.R. 307; 2001 ABQB 286, refd to. [para. 13].

Lexogest Inc. et al. v. Manitoba (Attorney General) et al. (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 8; 41 W.A.C. 8 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

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. [para. 14].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 14].

National Corn Growers' Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 15].

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1386 v. Bransen Construction Ltd. et al. (2002), 249 N.B.R.(2d) 93; 648 A.P.R. 93; 2002 NBCA 27, refd to. [para. 15].

Taylor et al. v. Dairy Farmers of Nova Scotia (2012), 311 N.S.R.(2d) 300; 985 A.P.R. 300; 2012 NSCA 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. (2009), 383 N.R. 200; 2008 FCA 243, refd to. [para. 24].

Whatcott v. Human Rights Tribunal (Sask.) et al. (2013), 441 N.R. 1; 409 Sask.R. 75; 568 W.A.C. 75; 2013 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 24].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown and Evans, Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (2012), vol. 3 looseleaf, p. 15:3262 [para. 5].

Dreidger, E.A., Construction of Statutes (1974), p. 87 [para. 7].

Counsel:

Avocats:

David Duncan Young, for the appellants;

Kenneth B. McCullogh, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 18, 2013, by Robertson, Richard and Bell, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered in both official languages on May 3, 2013, and included the following opinions:

Robertson, J.A. (Richard, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 17;

Bell, J.A. - see paragraphs 18 to 25.