[1] On January 18, 2000, the appellant, Westshore Terminals Ltd., commenced judicial review proceedings in respect of the Vancouver Port Authority's refusal, in effect, to reduce Westshore's lease payments under a Lease Agreement entered into on March 1, 1982, with the predecessor to the Vancouver Port Authority. Westshore claims that the lease payments were unfair, unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory, contrary to subsections 49(3) and 50(1) of the Canada Marine Act, S.C. 1998, c. 10.

[2] Under rule 107(1), the Vancouver Port Authority obtained leave to have the Court answer a number of questions prior to hearing the merits of the judicial review application. Nadon J. (as he then was) answered the questions by decision dated February 22, 2002, and Westshore now appeals that decision.

[3] Westshore leases from the Vancouver Port Authority land and water lots at Robert's Bank in British Columbia. It operates an export coal terminal at that site.

[4] The only issue is whether Nadon J. was in error in his answers to the questions in his February 22, 2002, decision. We are in substantial agreement with the thorough reasons of Nadon J. and no useful purpose would be served by restating them in our own words.

[5] It is only necessary to deal with one argument made by Westshore here that was not dealt with by Nadon J. Westshore says its lease payments are fees to which section 53 of the Canada Marine Act applies. As such, it is said, they are subject to the requirements of subsections 49(3) and 50(1) that they be fair and reasonable and that they not be unjustly discriminatory.

[6] Although we agree with Nadon J. that the lease payments are not fees for the reasons he has given, for purposes of dealing with this argument, we will assume that they are fees. The regulatory scheme dealing with fees is set out in sections 49 to 53 of the Canada Marine Act.

49. (1) A port authority may fix fees to be paid in respect of (a) ships, vehicles, aircraft and persons coming into or using the port;

(b) goods loaded on ships, unloaded from ships or transhipped by water within the limits of the port or moved across the port; and

(2) A port authority may fix the interest rate that it charges on overdue fees.

(3) The fees fixed by a port authority shall be at a level that permits it to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis and shall be fair and reasonable.

(4) The fees and interest rate may be made binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.

(5) The fees fixed under paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) do not apply in respect of a Canadian warship, naval auxiliary ship or other ship under the command of the Canadian Forces, a ship of a visiting force within the meaning of the Visiting Forces Act or any other ship while it is under the command of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

(6) A fee that is in force in respect of a port on the coming into force of this section continues in force for a period ending on the earlier of the expiration of six months and the date on which it is replaced by a fee fixed under subsection (1).

50. (1) A port authority shall not unjustly discriminate among users or classes of users of the port, give an undue or unreasonable preference to any user or class of user or subject any user or class of user to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.

(2) It is not unjust discrimination and it is not an undue nor an unreasonable preference or disadvantage for a port authority to differentiate among users or classes of users on the basis of the volume or value of goods shipped or on any other basis that is generally commercially accepted.

51. (1) Where a port authority proposes to fix a new fee or revise an existing fee for wharfage, berthage or harbour dues, it shall give notice of the proposal in accordance with this section and no fee shall come into force before the expiration of sixty days after the last of the notices is given.

(2) The notice shall

(a) set out the particulars of the proposal;

(b) specify that a document containing more details about the proposal may be obtained from the port authority on request; and

(c) specify that persons interested in making representations in writing to the port authority about the proposal may do so by writing to the address set out in the notice.

(3) The port authority shall

(a) have the notice published in a major newspaper published or distributed in the place where the port is situated;

(b) send, by mail or by electronic means, a copy of the notice to

(i) organizations whose members will, in the opinion of the port authority, be affected by the new or revised fee, and

(ii) every user and other person who has, at least ten days before, notified the port authority of a desire to receive notices or announcements under this Part; and

(c) post an electronic version of the notice in a location that is generally accessible to persons who have access to what is commonly referred to as the Internet.

(4) The notice required by this section does not apply to any fees accepted in a contract under section 53.

52. (1) Any interested person may at any time file a complaint with the Agency that there is unjust discrimination in a fee fixed under subsection 49(1), and the Agency shall consider the complaint without delay and report its findings to the port authority, and the port authority shall govern itself accordingly.

(2) Section 40 of the Canada Transportation Act applies, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to every report of the Agency made under subsection (1) as if the report were a decision made pursuant to that Act.

53. A port authority may agree, by a contract that the parties may agree to keep confidential, to accept fees in respect of the persons and things set out in paragraphs 49(1)(a) to (c) that are different from the fees fixed under those paragraphs.

49. (1) L'administration portuaire peut fixer les droits à payer à l'égard_: a) des navires, véhicules, aéronefs et personnes entrant dans le port ou en faisant usage;

b) des marchandises soit déchargées de ces navires, chargées à leur bord ou transbordées par eau dans le périmètre portuaire, soit passant par le port;

c) des services qu'elle fournit ou des avantages qu'elle accorde, en rapport avec l'exploitation du port.

(2) L'administration peut fixer le taux d'intérêt frappant les droits impayés.

(3) Les droits que fixe l'administration portuaire doivent lui permettre le financement autonome de ses opérations et également être équitables et raisonnables.

(4) Les droits et le taux d'intérêt peuvent être rendus obligatoires pour Sa Majesté du chef du Canada ou d'une province.

(5) Les droits prévus aux alinéas (1)a) et b) ne s'appliquent pas aux navires de guerre canadiens, aux navires auxiliaires de la marine, aux navires placés sous le commandement des Forces canadiennes, aux navires de forces étrangères présentes au Canada au sens de la Loi sur les forces étrangères présentes au Canada, ni aux navires placés sous le commandement de la Gendarmerie royale du Canada.

(6) Les droits en vigueur à l'égard d'un port à l'entrée en vigueur du présent article demeurent en vigueur pendant une période maximale de six mois sauf s'ils sont remplacés plus tôt.

50. (1) L'administration portuaire est tenue d'éviter la discrimination injustifiée entre les utilisateurs ou catégories d'utilisateurs, ou l'octroi d'un avantage injustifié ou déraisonnable, ou l'imposition d'un désavantage injustifié ou déraisonnable, à un utilisateur ou à une catégorie d'utilisateurs.

(2) Ne constitue pas une discrimination injustifiée ou un désavantage injustifié ou déraisonnable la distinction fondée sur le volume ou la valeur des marchandises transportées ou sur toute autre caractéristique généralement admise commercialement.

51. (1) L'administration portuaire donne, conformément au présent article, un préavis des droits d'amarrage, des droits d'accostage ou des droits de port qu'elle se propose de fixer ou de réviser, les droits ne pouvant entrer en vigueur avant l'expiration d'un délai de soixante jours après la dernière de ces publications.

(2) Le préavis fait part de tous les renseignements concernant la proposition, indique que des renseignements supplémentaires peuvent être obtenus sur demande auprès de l'administration portuaire et donne aux intéressés l'occasion de présenter leurs observations par écrit en les faisant parvenir à l'adresse y indiquée.

(3) Le préavis est publié dans un journal à grand tirage du lieu où est situé le port, envoyé par courrier ou par voie électronique aux organisations dont les membres, de l'avis de l'administration portuaire, seront touchés par les droits - nouveaux ou révisés - ainsi qu'à tout utilisateur ou toute personne ayant manifesté auprès de la société, au moins dix jours auparavant, le désir de recevoir les préavis exigés par la présente partie; il est aussi inscrit en un endroit accessible sur le réseau communément appelé Internet.

(4) L'obligation de préavis mentionnée au présent article ne s'applique pas aux droits prévus par un contrat conclu en vertu de l'article 53.

52. (1) Tout intéressé peut déposer auprès de l'Office une plainte portant qu'un droit fixé aux termes du paragraphe 49(1) comporte une distinction injustifiée; l'Office examine la plainte sans délai et communique ses conclusions à l'administration portuaire qui est liée par celles-ci.

(2) L'article 40 de la Loi sur les transports au Canada s'applique, avec les adaptations nécessaires, aux conclusions de l'Office, comme s'il s'agissait d'une décision rendue en application de cette loi.

53. L'administration portuaire peut par contrat, que les parties peuvent convenir de garder confidentiel, accepter, pour les services visés aux alinéas 49(1)a) à c), des droits différents de ceux qui sont fixés aux termes de ces alinéas.

[7] As we read these provisions, under subsection 49(1), a Port Authority may fix fees for its services. The fixed fees are then payable by any user wanting to avail itself of the Port Authority services. When the Port Authority proposes to revise an existing fee for wharfage, berthage or harbour dues, it shall, in accordance with subsections 51(1), (2) and (3), give notice of the revisions and no revised fee shall come into force before expiry of 60 days from the date of notice. Under subsection 52(1), any interested person may file a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency that there is unjust discrimination in a fee fixed under subsection 49(1).

[8] However, under section 53, when the Port Authority and the user make an agreement respecting fees, the agreement may be kept confidential and the fees may be different from those fixed under subsection 49(1).

[9] Contrary to the argument of Westshore, when fees are agreed upon according to section 53, the requirements of sections 49 to 52 are not applicable. That is apparent from a number of provisions.

[10] First, subsection 49(6) provides that fees in place on the date the Canada Marine Act came into force, March 1, 1999, expire on the earlier of 6 months after the Act came into force and the replacement of the fee by a fee fixed under subsection 49(1). There is no suggestion that subsection 49(6) was intended to abrogate contracts that the Port Authority had entered into, perhaps long before March 1, 1999, and whose terms continued well past March 1, 1999. Indeed, there is no rational connection between subsection 49(6) and fees agreed to in a contract, and no reason for contracts to be brought to an end simply because the Canada Marine Act came into force.

[11] Second, subsection 52(1) provides that relief may be sought from the Canadian Transportation Agency from any fee that is fixed under subsection 49(1) that is unjustly discriminatory. However, a fee under a contract to which section 53 is applicable is not a fee fixed under subsection 49(1) and there is no provision for relief in respect of a contractually agreed fee. This interpretation is supported by the fact that unjust discrimination implies comparison in fees charged between users where conditions are substantially similar. Section 53 provides for fees under confidential contracts. Where fees are contained in confidential contracts, there is no basis for comparison. Therefore, the relief against unjust discrimination was not intended to apply to fees under contracts.

[12] Third, subsection 49(1) provides that the Port Authority "may fix fees". That terminology is applicable to the unilateral publication of fees payable by users in general and that is the reason for the notice provision under subsections 51(1), (2) and (3) and the opportunity for those affected to make representations to the Port Authority about the proposed revision. However, under subsection 51(4), the requirement to publish is not applicable to fees accepted in a contract, again reinforcing the view that fees accepted in a contract are not fees fixed under subsection 49(1) and that sections 49 to 52 are not applicable to fees accepted in a contract.

[13] The ability of a Port Authority and a user to contract for services and agree upon the fees for those services as provided by section 53, reflects an intention by Parliament to deregulate, to some degree, the business carried on by a Port Authority. To superimpose a regulatory regime for relief on this deregulated aspect of the business of the Port Authority would run counter to the intention of Parliament. However, users are not required to contract with a Port Authority for services. If they choose not to do so, they will pay fees fixed under subsection 49(1) and will be entitled to avail themselves of the relief provided in sections 49 to 52.

[14] For these reasons, we are of the view that even if lease payments are fees, they fall under section 53. The relief available against unjust discrimination in respect of fees fixed under subsection 49(1) is not applicable to fees under section 53.

[15] We would observe, in passing, that in this case, the relevant Lease Agreement provides that where the Vancouver Port Authority increases the rental rate, Westshore may refer the matter of the appropriate rental rate for the period in question to arbitration. Where parties freely enter into a contract, they may include a provision such as the arbitration clause as in this case. Regulatory relief is only available where the Port Authority unilaterally fixes fees and users have no alternative.

[16] Westshore suggests that regulatory relief should be available from this Court where a provider of services or an owner of land, subject to federal jurisdiction, has a practical monopoly. For the reasons given by Nadon J. and because the Canada Marine Act establishes a regulatory scheme for relief which is to be sought from the Canadian Transportation Agency, we see no merit to this argument.

[17] We would, therefore, confirm the answers given to questions 1 to 4 by Nadon J. With respect to question 5, we would point out that this was a judicial review application in the Trial Division. The relief the Court may grant in judicial review would be to remit the matter of rental rates to the Vancouver Port Authority for redetermination in accordance with any directions the Court may provide. However, the wide-ranging relief requested following paragraph 57 of the application for judicial review is all based on the Court finding that Westshore may, under the Canada Marine Act, seek relief from rental rates under its lease. For the reasons given by Nadon J., as supplemented by these reasons, there is no such relief available. The answer to question 5 is that the Court cannot grant the relief as set out in the particulars following paragraph 57 of the judicial review application.

[18] The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

(Sgd.) "Marshall E. Rothstein"

J.A.

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-124-02

STYLE OF CAUSE: Westshore Terminals Ltd. v. Vancouver Port Authority

PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, BC

DATE OF HEARING: December 17, 2002

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rothstein

DATED: December 18, 2002

CONCURRED IN BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pelletier

The Honourable Mr. Justice Malone

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Bruce Carr-Harris FOR APPELLANT

Mr. Peter Juk

Mr. Barry Kirkham FOR RESPONDENT

Mr. Gregory Tucker

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Borden Ladner Gervais FOR APPELLANTS

Ottawa, ON

Owen Bird FOR RESPONDENT

Vancouver, BC

You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.

Do not display this message anymore