Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Statutes – Interpretation – Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act, S.C. 1992, c. 5 (“ATA”) – Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, S.C. 1996, c. 20 (“CANSCA”) – Whether the lower courts erred in construing the term “owner” in ss. 55(1) CANSCA for the purposes of determining liability for unpaid charges or fees – Whether the lower courts erred in interpreting the scope of the seizure and detention remedies under s. 56 CANSCA and s. 9 ATA with respect to the lessors/owners/legal titleholders of seized aircraft.

NAV Canada provides all aircraft operators in Canadian airspace with civil air navigation services. Seven “airport authorities” are private corporations that operate various airports throughout Canada.
NAV Canada has the right to impose service fees on aircraft operators pursuant to the CANSCA. The airport authorities have the right to impose similar service fees on aircraft operators and pursuant to s. 9 of the ATA may similarly apply to superior courts and obtain an order “to seize and detain aircraft”. Inter-Canadian (1991) Inc. used NAV Canada’s services to carry business as an aircraft operator over a period of many years. It was the “registered owner” and operator of aircraft leased from the eleven “investors”.

In November 1999, Inter-Canadian suspended its operations. It owed NAV Canada and the other airport authorities a substantial amount in service charges. In December 1999, NAV Canada and the airport authorities obtained several orders from the Quebec Superior Court to seize certain aircraft operated by Inter-Canadian. These orders were contested by the investors, who own the seized aircraft. NAV Canada and the seven airport authorities also instituted proceedings against Inter-Canadian to recover the unpaid charges. NAV Canada, alleging joint and several liability (or solidarity), instituted proceedings against some of the investors to recover the unpaid charges.

Inter-Canadian became bankrupt on March 27, 2000, and Ernst & Young Inc. was appointed as trustee. The trustee denied all the claims and addressed the Superior Court for instructions. The investors filed a motion to appeal the trustee’s decision and the motion for directions. The airport authorities opposed the motion.

On July 7, 2000, the investors were authorized by the Superior Court to post security in exchange for the release of the aircraft. Shortly thereafter, the investors filed a motion for declaratory judgment asking the Superior Court to declare that the airport authorities were not the owners of the aircraft and that they had no right to detain or no lien, interest or priority on the aircraft.

All the outstanding motions were joined. On November 9, 2000, the Superior Court granted the actions instituted by NAV Canada and the seven airport authorities, declared that the seizures were valid, authorized the investors to take possession of their respective aircraft upon payment of the outstanding charges and fees, denied the trustee’s motion and the appeal of the trustee’s decision, and declared that NAV Canada and the airport authorities had a right of retention of the aircraft. On November 15, 2004, the majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the investors’ appeals, rejected NAV Canada’s and the airport authorities’ cross-appeals and denied NAV Canada’s and the airport authorities’ actions, Nuss J.A. dissenting.