Via Rail v. Nat. Transportation Agency (2000), 261 N.R. 184 (FCA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2000] N.R. TBEd. NO.016
In The Matter Of subsection 63.3(1) of the National Transportation Act, 1987, R.S.C. 1985, c. 28 (3rd Supp.);
And In The Matter Of National Transportation Agency Order No. 1995-R-491 and Decision No. 791-R-1995, both dated November 28, 1995.
Via Rail Canada Inc. (applicant) v. National Transportation Agency and Jean Lemonde (respondents)
(A-507-96)
Indexed As:
Via Rail Canada Inc. v. National Transportation Agency et al.
Federal Court of Appeal
Linden, Sexton and Evans, JJ.A.
October 10, 2000.
Summary:
The National Transportation Agency held that a portion of Via Rail’s Special and Joint Passenger Tariff constituted an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons with disabilities. Via Rail appealed.
The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and referred the matter to a differently constituted panel.
Administrative Law – Topic 549
The hearing and decision – Decisions of the tribunal – Reasons for decisions – Sufficiency of – The National Transportation Agency held that a portion of Via Rail’s Special and Joint Passenger Tariff constituted an undue obstacle to the mobility of persons with disabilities – Via Rail appealed – The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and referred the matter to a differently constituted panel – “Undue” was a relative concept – The Agency’s reasons were inadequate because they failed to provide sufficient indication of the reasoning process that the Agency might have followed or of what factors it might have considered relevant.
Railways – Topic 1068
Regulation – Canadian Transportation Agency – Appeals – [See
Administrative Law – Topic 549
].
Cases Noticed:
Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 6].
Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684; 23 N.R. 565; 12 A.R. 449; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 8].
Desai and Kidd v. Brantford General Hospital (1991), 52 O.A.C. 221; 87 D.L.R.(4th) 140 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 9].
Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] 2 F.C. 592; 252 N.R. 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 11].
Weidman v. Shragge (1912), 46 S.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 35, footnote 14].
R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 35, footnote 15].
R. v. Smith (Howard) Paper Mills Ltd., [1957] S.C.R. 403, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 16].
R. v. Aetna Insurance Co., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 731; 15 N.R. 117; 20 N.S.R.(2d) 565; 27 A.P.R. 565, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 16].
Container Materials Ltd. v. R., [1947] S.C.R. 147, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 17].
Reimer Express Lines Ltd., Re, [1974] 2 F.C. 164; 7 N.R. 32, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 18].
Ontario (Minister of Transportation and Communications) v. Canadian Transport Commission – see Reimer Express Lines Ltd., Re.
Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Human Rights Commission (Alta.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489; 113 N.R. 161; 111 A.R. 241, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 19].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Evans, J.M., Janisch, H.N., Mullan, David J., and Risk, R.C.B., Administrative Law: Texts and Materials (4th Ed. 1995), p. 507 [para. 21, footnote 7].
Counsel:
John Campion and Yvonne Chisholm, for the applicant;
Elizabeth C. Barker, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Fasken Campbell Godfrey, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;
Canadian Transportation Agency, Hull, Quebec, for the respondent.
This application was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on September 25, 2000, by Linden, Sexton and Evans, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Sexton, J.A., delivered the following decision for the Court of Appeal on October 10, 2000.
