Navigation Madeleine Inc. v. Canada (Procureur général) et al., (2005) 346 N.R. 88 (FCA)

• Judge: Desjardins, Nadon and Pelletier, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: December 07, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 346 N.R. 88 (FCA);2005 FCA 10

Navigation Madeleine Inc. v. Can. (P.g.) (2005), 346 N.R. 88 (FCA)

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: [2005] N.R. TBEd. JA.030

Navigation Madeleine Inc. (appelante/demanderesse) v. Procureur général du Canada (intimé/défendeur) et Administration de pilotage des Laurentides (intimée/défenderesse)

(A-81-04; 2005 FCA 10; 2005 CAF 10)

Indexed As: Navigation Madeleine Inc. v. Canada (Procureur général) et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Desjardins, Nadon and Pelletier, JJ.A.

January 14, 2005.

Summary:

The applicant sought a declaration that its vessel (the Vacancier) was a ferry within the meaning of s. 4(3)(b) of the Laurentian Pi­lo­tage Authority Regulations and that it was consequently exempted from the com­pulsory pilotage provisions under the Pilotage Act and the Regulations.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at 235 F.T.R. 88, dismissed the application. The applicant appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 25

Definitions - Ferry - The Vacancier oper­ated on a regular schedule between the ports of Montréal and Cap-aux-Meules in the Iles-de-la-Madeleine - It carried pas­sengers and vehicles and provided a link between the Iles-de-la-Madeleine and Qué­bec - At issue was whether the Vacan­cier was a "ferry" within the meaning of s. 4(3)(b) of the Laurentian Pilotage Author­ity Regulations and therefore exempt from compulsory pilotage - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Vacancier was not a "ferry" within s. 4(3)(b) based on the usual meaning of that word (i.e., a ship which, replacing a road, provided com­muni­cation over water between two points of land) - The court stated that if it were to correspond to the usual meaning of the word "ferry", the Vacancier would only pro­vide service from the Iles-de-la-Madeleine to the mainland - However, the Vacancier did more than that - After cross­ing from the Iles-de-la-Madeleine to the main­land, it continued along the land on the Gaspé side to Matane, then stopped at Québec before drop­ping anchor in Mon­tréal - See para­graphs 16 to 34.

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 25

Definitions - Ferry - At issue was whether the appellant's vessel was a "ferry" within the meaning of s. 4(3)(b) of the Laurentian Pilotage Authority Regulations and there­fore exempt from compulsory pilotage - The appellant submitted that in determin­ing the meaning of the word "ferry" in s. 4(3)(b), reference had to be made to ss. 12 and 15 of the Interpretation Act, which in­dicated that legislation should be inter­preted in light of legislation adopted by the same legislature on the same subject matter - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the examples of other legislation referred to by the appellant could not be used as a basis for interpreting of the word "ferry" - They were not a definition of the word "ferry" and the provisions were not uni­form, but varied from one piece of legisla­tion to another - The scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament were also not determining fac­tors in determining the meaning of the word "ferry" - Rather, the court looked at the actual wording of s. 4(3)(b) to deter­mine the scope of the exemption - See para­graphs 16 to 21.

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 4245

Pilotage - Compulsory pilotage - Exemp­tions - [See both Shipping and Naviga­tion - Topic 25 ].

Words and Phrases

Ferry - The Federal Court of Appeal con­sidered the meaning of the word "ferry" in s. 4(3)(b) of the Laurentian Pilotage Au­thority Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1268, en­acted under the Pilotage Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-14 - see paragraphs 16 to 28.

Cases Noticed:

Thomson v. Canada (Minister of Agricul­ture), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 385; 133 N.R. 345; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 218; 3 Admin. L.R.(2d) 242, refd to. [para. 21].

Victoria (City) v. Bishop of Vancouver Island, [1921] A.C. 384; [1921] 3 W.W.R. 214; 59 D.L.R. 399, refd to. [para. 22].

Prince Edward Island v. Canada, [1976] 2 F.C. 712 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27].

Dinner v. Humberstone (1896), 26 S.C.R. 252, refd to. [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Laurentian Pilotage Authority Regulations - see Pilotage Act Regulations (Can.).

Pilotage Act Regulations (Can.), Lauren­tian Pilotage Authority Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 1268, sect. 4(3)(b) [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Encyclopedia of the Canada His­torica Foundation (2004), generally [para. 26].

Canadian Encyclopedia: World Edition (1999), generally [para. 26].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legis­lation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), pp. 364 [para. 19]; 369 [para. 22].

Counsel:

Fernand Deveau and Francis Gervais, for the appellant;

Anne-Marie Desgens, for the respondent, Attorney General of Canada;

Guy Major, for the respondent, Laurentian Pilotage Authority.

Solicitors of Record:

Deveau, Lavoie, Bourgeois, Lalande & Associés, Laval, Quebec, for the appel­lant;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­er­al of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent, Attorney General of Can­ada;

Guy Major, Montreal, Quebec, for the re­spon­dent, Laurentian Pilotage Author­ity.

This appeal was heard on December 7, 2004, at Montreal, Quebec, before Desjar­dins, Nadon and Pelletier, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following judg­ment of the Court of Appeal was de­liv­ered by Desjardins, J.A., on January 14, 2005.