Kingcome Navigation Co. et al. v. Nanaimo Harbour Commission, (1993) 70 F.T.R. 35 (TD)

• Judge: Joyal, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 15, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 70 F.T.R. 35 (TD)

Kingcome Navigation v. Harbour Comm. (1993), 70 F.T.R. 35 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Kingcome Navigation Co., A Division of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. and Tymac Launch Service Ltd. (applicants) and Nanaimo Harbour Commission (respondent)

(T-1917-93; T-1918-93)

Indexed As: Kingcome Navigation Co. et al. v. Nanaimo Harbour Commission

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Joyal, J.

November 8, 1993.

Summary:

Kingcome Navigation Co. applied for leave to operate a once-a-day public trailer-ferry service between particular points in Nanaimo Harbour and Vancouver Harbour in British Columbia. Kingcome also sought permission to carry certain categories of dangerous goods as defined in the Dangerous Goods Shipping Regulations. The Nanaimo Harbour Commission initially granted permission, but subsequently restricted Kingcome in the carriage of dangerous goods to another area of the Harbour. Kingcome applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the application, quashed the later decision by the Harbour Commission and held that the initial decision granting permission to operate the service should be given its full effect.

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - What constitutes procedural fairness - [See Shipping and Navigation - Topic 7766 ].

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 7766

Harbours - Navigational schemes - Duty of fairness - The Nanaimo Harbour Commission granted permission for Kingcome Navigation to operate a once-a-day nighttime public trailer-ferry service from Departure Bay in Nanaimo Harbour, including permission to carry certain dangerous goods as defined by the Dangerous Goods Shipping Regulations - Approximately a month later, the Commission restricted Kingcome Navigation's carriage of dangerous goods, ruling that such goods must be taken to another area of the Harbour called Duke Point - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, quashed the Commission's decision restricting Kingcome Navigation's operations, stating, inter alia, that such ex post facto decisions do not stand up to the tests of fairness, reasonableness and equity imposed upon decision-making authorities.

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 7767

Harbours - Navigational schemes - Dangerous goods - [See Shipping and Navigation - Topic 7766 ].

Cases Noticed:

Oakwood Development Ltd. v. St. Francis Xavier (Rural Municipality), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 164; 61 N.R. 321; 36 Man.R.(2d) 215, refd to. [para. 42].

Desjardins v. National Parole Board et al. (1989), 29 F.T.R. 38 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 43].

Padfield et al. v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food et al., [1968] 1 All E.R. 694; [1968] A.C. 997 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 44].

Griffin et al. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture) (1989), 26 F.T.R. 185 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 45].

Jackson et al. v. Beaudry (1969), 7 D.L.R.(3d) 737 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47].

Stacey's Furniture World Clearance Centre Ltd. v. Armstrong et al. (1981), 121 D.L.R.(3d) 712 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

Kruse v. Johnson, [1898] 2 Q.B. 91, refd to. [para. 49].

Belvedere Estates Ltd. v. Saanich (District) (1980), 19 B.C.L.R. 110 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

K & B Ambulance Ltd. v. Prince Albert (City), [1978] 1 W.W.R. 399 (Sask. C.A.), reving. (1977), 77 D.L.R.(3d) 629 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 53, 54].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 56].

Koslowski and Skjelvik v. West Vancouver (District), [1981] 4 W.W.R. 464 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 59].

Central Ontario Coalition Concerning Hydro Transmission Systems et al. v. Ontario Hydro et al. (1984), 4 O.A.C. 249; 46 O.R.(2d) 715 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 91].

Brewster Mountain Pack Trains Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) (1993), 66 F.T.R. 18 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 91].

Statutes Noticed:

Dangerous Goods Shipping Regulations - see Shipping Act Regulations (Can.).

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18.1(4) [para. 40].

Harbour Commissions Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-1, sect. 3(1)(c), sect. 3(2), sect. 4 [para. 86]; sect. 13 [para. 60].

Harbour Commissions Act (Can.) Bylaws, Nanaimo Harbour Commission Bylaw, sect. 88, sect. 89 [para. 31].

Nanaimo Harbour Commission Bylaws - see Harbour Commission Act (Can.) Bylaws.

Shipping Act Regulations (Can.), Dangerous Goods Shipping Regulations, generally [paras. 3, 9, 83].

Authors and Works Noticed:

de Smith, S.A., Judicial Review of Administrative Action (2nd Ed.), p. 294 [para. 47].

Reid, R.F. and H. David, Administrative Law and Practice (2nd Ed. 1978), p. 142 [para. 57].

Counsel:

Edward Gouge and Elaine Peaston, for the applicants;

Joseph Pelrine and James Sullivan, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Lawson, Lundell, Lawson & McIntosh, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicants;

Davis & Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 15, 1993, before Joyal, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on November 8, 1993.