Prairie Coach v. Motor Transport Bd. (2012), 284 Man.R.(2d) 28 (CA);
555 W.A.C. 28
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2012] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.036
Prairie Coach Charter Services Ltd. (appellant) v. The Motor Transport Board (respondent)
(AI 11-30-07594; 2012 MBCA 95)
Indexed As: Prairie Coach Charter Services Ltd. v. Motor Transport Board (Man.)
Manitoba Court of Appeal
Steel, Monnin and MacInnes, JJ.A.
September 14, 2012.
Summary:
The Manitoba Transport Board refused to accept an application by a chartered bus service for an amendment to its operating authority. The bus service operator appealed.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
Administrative Law – Topic 24
Abuse of process – What constitutes – [See
Carriers – Topic 1721
].
Administrative Law – Topic 547
The hearing and decision – Decisions of the tribunal – Reasons for decisions – When required – [See
Carriers – Topic 1721
].
Administrative Law – Topic 2293
Natural justice – Unfairness – Abuse of power or abuse of process – [See
Carriers – Topic 1721
].
Carriers – Topic 1721
Licensing – Variation or rewriting of licence – General – The Manitoba Transport Board refused to accept (i.e., returned with the filing fee) an application by a chartered bus service operator for an amendment to its operating authority because it considered it to be a duplicate of prior applications – The bus service operator appealed – The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the operator should be allowed to resubmit its application to be processed according to the board’s rules of procedure – In summarily rejecting the application, the board failed to meet its statutory obligations – While the tribunal had the authority to prevent an abuse of its process, it should have told the operator of its concern and allowed the operator to respond.
Cases Noticed:
Alberta Teachers’ Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 339 D.L.R.(4th) 428; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 12].
London (City) v. Ayerswood Development Corp. et al. (2002), 167 O.A.C. 120 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].
2127423 Manitoba Ltd. v. Unicity Taxi Ltd. et al. (2012), 280 Man.R.(2d) 292; 548 W.A.C. 292; 2012 MBCA 75, refd to. [para. 13].
Prassad v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 560; 93 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 15].
Bremsak v. Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (2012), 432 N.R. 351; 2012 FCA 91, refd to. [para. 15].
Statutes Noticed:
Highway Traffic Act Regulations (Man.), Motor Transport Board Rules of Procedure, Man. Reg. 150/88, rule 4(1), rule 5(1), rule 7, rule 8, rule 54, rule 55 [para. 7].
Motor Transport Board Rules of Procedure – see Highway Traffic Act Regulations (Man.), Motor Transport Board Rules of Procedure.
Counsel:
D.E. Swayze, for the appellant;
B.T. Jones, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on September 14, 2012, before Steel, Monnin and MacInnes, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered orally by the court on September 14, 2012, with written reasons released by Monnin, J.A., on October 12, 2012.
