Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General)
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2016-01-15
Neutral citation
2016 SCC 1
Report
[2016] 1 SCR 6
Case number
36223
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Cromwell, Thomas Albert; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell
On appeal from
Federal Court of Appeal
Subjects
Administrative law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 36223
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 SCC 1, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 6
Appeal heard: December 9, 2015
Judgment rendered: January 15, 2016
Docket: 36223
Between:
Canadian Pacific Railway Company
Appellant
and
Attorney General of Canada and Canadian Transportation Agency
Respondents
- and –
Railway Association of Canada
Intervener
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 4)
The Court
Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 SCC 1, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 6
Canadian Pacific Railway Company Appellant
v.
Attorney General of Canada and
Canadian Transportation Agency Respondents
and
Railway Association of Canada Intervener
Indexed as: Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General)
2016 SCC 1
File No.: 36223.
2015: December 9; 2016: January 15.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ.
on appeal from the federal court of appeal
Administrative law — Boards and tribunals — Regulatory boards — Canadian Transportation Agency — Transportation law — Railways — Regulatory process — Presumption Agency acted properly in amending rail regulations — No facts adduced rebutting presumption — Regulations Amending the Railway Interswitching Regulations, SOR/2014‑193.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10 .
Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, S.C. 2014, c. 8 .
Regulations Amending the Railway Interswitching Regulations, SOR/2014‑193.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (Noël C.J. and Dawson and Webb JJ.A.), No. 14‑A‑56, dated October 28, 2014, dismissing an application for leave to appeal, pursuant to s. 41 of the Canada Transportation Act , the Regulations Amending the Railway Interswitching Regulations issued by the Canadian Transportation Agency. Appeal dismissed.
Douglas C. Hodson, Q.C., and Kristen A. MacDonald, for the appellant.
Mark R. Kindrachuk, Q.C., and Alexander Pless, for the respondent the Attorney General of Canada.
Valérie Lagacé, for the respondent the Canadian Transportation Agency.
Nadia Effendi and Guy J. Pratte, for the intervener.
The following is the judgment delivered by
[1] The Court — On August 1, 2014, Regulations Amending the Railway Interswitching Regulations, SOR/2014-193 (the “amending Regulations”), came into force. The amending Regulations were issued by the Canadian Transportation Agency, pursuant to its powers under the Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10 , and following passage by Parliament of the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, S.C. 2014, c. 8 . The amending Regulations extend the interswitching distance limit from 30 km to 160 km for all commodities in the three Prairie Provinces, and prescribe new rates for interswitching rail traffic within that zone.
[2] The appellant, Canadian Pacific Railway Company, asks this Court to declare the amending Regulations to be null and void, on the ground that the Agency acted improperly in issuing them by following government directives to expand the interswitching distance limit in the Prairie Provinces. The appellant concedes that the Agency was empowered to issue the amending Regulations; its complaint is not with the content of the amending Regulations, but with the process followed by the Agency.
[3] The appellant also concedes that the Agency is presumed to have acted properly in making its decision to issue the amending Regulations. The question, therefore, is whether the appellant has adduced facts rebutting this presumption. In our view, it has not done so.
[4] The appeal is dismissed, with costs to the Attorney General of Canada.
Appeal dismissed with costs to the Attorney General of Canada.
Solicitors for the appellant: MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman, Saskatoon.
Solicitor for the respondent the Attorney General of Canada: Attorney General of Canada, Saskatoon.
Solicitor for the respondent the Canadian Transportation Agency: Canadian Transportation Agency, Gatineau.
Solicitors for the intervener: Borden Ladner Gervais, Toronto.