Total Oilfield Rentals Limited Partnership v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., 2013 ABQB 263

• Judge: Hall, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 03, 2013
• Citations: 2013 ABQB 263;(2013), 562 A.R. 75 (QB)

Total Oilfield Rentals v. Can. (A.G.) (2013), 562 A.R. 75 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. MY.072

Total Oilfield Rentals Limited Partnership (applicant) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent) and The Attorney General of Alberta (intervener)

(1201 00477; 2013 ABQB 263)

Indexed As: Total Oilfield Rentals Limited Partnership v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Hall, J.

May 3, 2013.

Summary:

Total Oilfield Rentals Limited Partnership was in the business of renting oilfield equipment and transporting that equipment to job sites in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and North Dakota. At issue was whether Total Oilfield Rentals was governed by the federal Motor Vehicle Transport Act and Commercial Vehicles Drivers' Hours of Service Regulations.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined that Total Oilfield Rentals was governed by provincial highways and motor vehicle legislation and regulations.

Constitutional Law - Topic 6642

Federal jurisdiction - Interprovincial works - Transportation - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 7082 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7082

Provincial jurisdiction - Local works and undertakings - Highways and street traffic regulation - Total Oilfield Rentals Limited Partnership rented oilfield equipment and transported that equipment to job sites in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and North Dakota - At issue was whether Total Oilfield was governed by the federal motor vehicle transport legislation and regulations - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined that Total Oilfield was governed by provincial highways and motor vehicle legislation and regulations - Transportation was not the core of its business - Rather, the core of its business was oilfield equipment rental - Transportation was incidental - While 5 to 10% of Total Oilfield's revenue was derived from transporting equipment, that did not change its essential operational nature.

Cases Noticed:

Tessier Ltée v. Quebec (Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 3; 430 N.R. 1; 2012 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 5].

Conklin & Garrett Ltd. v. Director of Elevating Devices (Ont.) (1989), 36 O.A.C. 293 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Foremost Transport Personnel and Management Services Ltd. et al. (1982), 42 A.R. 237; 23 Alta. L.R.(2d) 271 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(29) [para. 2]; sect. 92(10) [para. 3].

Counsel:

Grant Stapon, Q.C., and Alison J. Gray, for the applicant;

Christine Ashcroft, for the respondent, Attorney General of Canada;

Lillian Riczu, for the intervener, Attorney General of Alberta.

This application was heard on April 3, 2013, before Hall, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Calgary Registry, who delivered the following decision on May 3, 2013.