Purolator Courier Ltd. v. Motor Transport Board (Man.), (1980) 3 Man.R.(2d) 107 (CA)

• Judge: Monnin, O'Sullivan and Huband, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: March 10, 1980
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1980), 3 Man.R.(2d) 107 (CA)

Purolator v. Motor Transport Bd. (1980), 3 Man.R.(2d) 107 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Purolator Courier Ltd. v. Motor Transport Board of Manitoba

Indexed As: Purolator Courier Ltd. v. Motor Transport Board (Man.)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Monnin, O'Sullivan and Huband, JJ.A.

March 10, 1980.

Summary:

This case arose out of several complaints made to the Manitoba Motor Transport Board that a carrier was transporting goods contrary to its license. After a show cause hearing pursuant to s. 273 of the Highway Traffic Act, the board varied the terms of the carrier's license because the carrier "had deliberately chosen to flout the principles of its philosophy of its operation and the weight restrictions imposed by the board ...". The carrier appealed the order of the board to the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the board and remitted the matter to the board. The Court of Appeal held that the order varying the carrier's license was invalid because such an alleged violation of "philosophy" by the carrier did not constitute a cause for discipline under s. 273 - see paragraphs 16 and 17.

Monnin, J.A., dissenting, in the Manitoba Court of Appeal would have dismissed the appeal and would have declared that the order in question was valid.

Carriers - Topic 1726

Licensing - Variation of license for cause - The Manitoba Motor Transport Board received several complaints that a carrier was transporting goods contrary to its license - After a show cause hearing pursuant to s. 273 of the Highway Traffic Act, the board varied the terms of the carrier's license because the carrier "had deliberately chosen to flout the principles of its philosophy of its operations and the weight restrictions imposed by the board ..." - See paragraph 12 - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the order varying the license was invalid because such an alleged violation of "philosophy" by the carrier did not constitute a cause for discipline under s. 273 - See paragraphs 16 and 17.

Carriers - Topic 1726

Licensing - Variation of license for cause - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that "cause" under s. 273 of the Highway Traffic Act means "sufficient cause to warrant disciplinary action" against the holder of the license - See paragraph 10.

Administrative Law - Topic 484

The hearing and decision - The tribunal - Preparation for hearing by the tribunal - The Manitoba Court of Appeal approved the preparations undertaken by the Chairman of the Manitoba Motor Transport Board for a show cause hearing respecting alleged violations of a carrier license - Prior to the hearing the Chairman consulted with an investigator and examined information respecting the operations of the carrier - See paragraphs 28 and 73.

Practice - Topic 7028

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - Successful party, exceptions, excessive or unfounded claims - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that unfounded claims constitute a ground for refusing to award costs to a successful party - See paragraph 30.

Carriers - Topic 1427

Provincial legislation - Jurisdiction or application of legislation - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the Manitoba Motor Transport Board sitting under the Manitoba Highway Traffic Act has no jurisdiction to make orders which affect extra-provincial licenses - See paragraphs 2 and 66 to 71.

Words and Phrases

Cause - The Manitoba Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "cause" as found in s. 273 of the Manitoba Highway Traffic Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. H-60 - See paragraph 10.

Cases Noticed:

Northland Fisheries Ltd. v. Motor Transport Board (1979), 2 Man.R.(2d) 15.

Statutes Noticed:

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. H-60, sect. 255(1), sect. 263(7) [para. 47]; sect. 273(1) [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

de Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (3rd Ed.) [para. 45].

Reid on Administrative Law and Practice [para. 46].

Counsel:

W.G. Ryall and R.B. McNicol, for the appellant carrier;

B.W. Drever, for the respondent Board.

This appeal was heard by MONNIN, O'SULLIVAN and HUBAND, JJ. A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal on November 14, 1979.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on March 10, 1980, and the following opinions were filed:

O'SULLIVAN, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 31;

MONNIN, J.A., dissenting, - see paragraphs 32 to 76.

HUBAND, J.A., concurred with O'SULLIVAN, J.A.