Date: 19980611
Docket: A-1027-96
Coram: MARCEAU J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Between:
LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE AUTHORITY
Plaintiff-Appellant
AND
TECHNO NAVIGATION LTÉE
-and-
TECHNO BARGES INC.
Defendants-Respondents
AND
THE SHIPS:
M.T. "TECHNO VENTURE"
BARGE "JEAN RAYMOND"
Defendants-Respondents
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec on Thursday, June 11, 1998.
Judgment delivered at Montréal, Quebec on Thursday, June 11, 1998.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
Date: 19980611
Docket: A-1027-96
Coram: MARCEAU J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Between:
LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE AUTHORITY
Plaintiff-Appellant
AND
TECHNO NAVIGATION LTÉE
-and-
TECHNO BARGES INC.
Defendants-Respondents
AND
THE SHIPS:
M.T. "TECHNO VENTURE"
BARGE "JEAN RAYMOND"
Defendants-Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] This appeal concerns the merits of the Trial Judge"s interpretation of several provisions of the Laurentian Pilotage Authority Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1268) (the Regulations) adopted under the Pilotage Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-14 (the Act). The Court was called upon to determine whether the Laurentian Pilotage Authority (the LPA) can claim pilotage charges from the defendants which it believes to be owed to it by reason of the activities of the tug Techno-Venture and the barge Jean-Raymond on the St. Lawrence River, between Les Escoumins and Portneuf, in pilotage districts No. 1 and No. 2.
[2] The Techno-Venture is a tug 138 feet long and 30 feet wide, with a net tonnage of 469.65 tons. The Jean-Raymond is a non-propelled barge measuring 409 feet long and 57 feet wide, with a net tonnage of 3,724.510 tons. Both belong to the respondent Techno-Barges Inc. The other respondent, Techno-Navigation Ltée, is Techno-Barges Inc."s agent, and as such, it is also liable to pay pilotage charges pursuant to article 42 of the Act.
[3] Initially, the LPA had divided its claim into two parts, one concerning the charges payable by the tug and the other concerning those payable by the barge. Moreover, the LPA had brought an action against the tug and the barge in rem. At the beginning of the trial, the LPA withdrew the action in rem and consolidated the two parts of its claim.
[4] The charges claimed total $38,653,98 and relate to three distinct situations:
| - pilotage services for which the defendants signed the pilotage service form under protest |
| - pilotage services for which the defendants refused to sign the pilotage service form |
| - pilotage charges payable pursuant to section 44 of the Act when the barge proceeded through a compulsory pilotage area without a pilot. |
[5] In each of these situations, the Jean-Raymond was being towed by the Techno-Venture.
[6] The defendants essentially claim that the tug and the barge are exempt from any pilotage requirement by the terms of the Regulations and that they are accordingly not liable for the payment of the charges claimed. The Trial Judge agreed with them.
[7] The relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations read as follows:
| 2. "ship" includes any description of vessel or boat used or designed for use in navigation, without regard to method or lack of propulsion.
|
2. "navire" Toute construction flottante conçue ou utilisée pour la navigation, qu'elle soit pourvue ou non d'un moyen propre de propulsion.
|
| "pilot" means any person not belonging to a ship who has the conduct thereof;
|
"pilote" Quiconque assure la conduite d'un navire sans toutefois faire partie de son équipage.
|
| 44. Except where an Authority waives compulsory pilotage, a ship subject to compulsory pilotage that proceeds through a compulsory pilotage area not under the conduct of a licensed pilot or the holder of a pilotage certificate is liable, to the Authority in respect of which the region including that area is set out in the schedule, for all pilotage charges as if the ship had been under the conduct of a licensed pilot.
|
44. Sauf si une Administration le dispense du pilotage obligatoire, le navire assujetti au pilotage obligatoire qui poursuit sa route dans une zone de pilotage obligatoire sans être sous la conduite d'un pilote breveté ou du titulaire d'un certificat de pilotage est responsable envers l'Administration dont relève cette zone des droits de pilotage comme si le navire avait été sous la conduite d'un pilote breveté.
|
| The Regulations
|
Le Règlement
|
| 4. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every ship or class of ship
| (a) registered in Canada that |
| (i) is operated in District No. 1 or District No. 1-1 and is over 68.58 metres (225 feet) in length and over 1,500 net registered tons, or |
| (ii) is operated in District No. 2 and is over 79.33 metres (260 feet) in length and over 2,000 net registered tons, and |
|
|
| 4. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (3), les navires ou catégories de navires
| (i) qui naviguent dans la circonscription no 1 ou la circonscription no 1-1, de plus de 68,58 mètres (225 pieds) de longueur et de plus de 1 500 tonneaux de jauge nette au registre, ou |
| (ii) qui naviguent dans la circonscription no 2, de plus de 79,33 mètres (260 pieds) de longueur et de plus de 2 000 tonneaux de jauge nette au registre, et |
|
|
| (b) not registered in Canada that is over 30.48 metres (100 feet) in length |
|
| b) non immatriculés au Canada, de plus de 30,48 mètres (100 pieds) de longueur |
|
| is subject to compulsory pilotage.
|
sont assujettis au pilotage obligatoire.
|
| (2) Every scow and barge that is registered in Canada, manned by Canadian masters and officers and carrying as cargo a pollutant, as defined in section 727 of the Canada Shipping Act, is subject to compulsory pilotage.
|
(2) Les gabarres et barges immatriculées au Canada, armées de capitaines et d'officiers canadiens et qui transportent une cargaison d'un polluant au sens de l'article 727 de la Loi sur la marine marchande du Canada sont assujetties au pilotage obligatoire.
|
| (3) The following ships or classes of ships, if registered in Canada and manned by Canadian masters and officers, are not subject to compulsory pilotage:
| (a) any ship owned by the Government of Canada and not engaged in commercial trade; |
| (b) any ferry operating in the passenger carrying trade on a regular schedule between two or more terminals; |
| (c) any ship designed for and engaged in fishing; |
| (d) any tug, floating crane or dredge; and |
| (e) any self-propelled barge trading regularly between two or more terminals in the Province of Quebec in or east of District No. 2 other than a barge described in subsection (2). |
|
(3) Les navires ou catégories de navires ci-après immatriculés au Canada et armés de capitaines et d'officiers canadiens ne sont pas assujettis au pilotage obligatoire:
| a) les navires du gouvernement du Canada non employés à des fins commerciales; |
| b) les traversiers affectés au transport payant de passagers entre plusieurs terminus, selon un horaire établi; |
| c) les navires conçus pour la pêche et affectés à la pêche; |
| d) les remorqueurs, grues flottantes et dragues; et |
| e) les barges autopropulsées affectées régulièrement au commerce entre plusieurs terminus de la province de Québec situés dans la circonscription no 2 ou à l'est, sauf les barges visées par le paragraphe (2). |
|
| (4) Notwithstanding subsection (3), where the operation of any ship described in paragraphs (b) to (e) thereof would, due to
| (a) the condition of the ship, |
| (b) unusual conditions on board the ship, or |
| (c) conditions of weather, tides, currents or ice |
|
(4) Nonobstant le paragraphe (3), lorsque l'utilisation d'un navire visé par l'un des alinéas b) à e) dudit paragraphe risque, par suite de
a) l'état du navire,
| b) circonstances exceptionnelles à bord du navire, ou |
| c) conditions atmosphériques, des marées, des courants ou des glaces |
|
| constitute a risk to the safety of navigation, that ship shall have a licensed pilot or a holder of a pilotage certificate on board.
|
de compromettre la sécurité de la navigation, ledit navire doit avoir à son bord un pilote breveté ou le titulaire d'un certificat de pilotage.
|
[8] There can be no doubt as to the combined effect of these provisions. They establish that when compulsory pilotage charges are payable, they are payable whether pilotage services were provided or not (Act, s. 44). They further establish that tugs and barges are "ships" (Act, s. 2; Regulations, paras. 4(3)(d) and (e).
[9] Specifically in regard to the compulsory pilotage of barges, we would adopt the following table, which was prepared by counsel for the LPA and which has been adapted slightly:
[TRANSLATION]
| Pursuant to section 4 of the Regulations, the following barges are subject to compulsory pilotage: |
|
| 1) Every barge registered in Canada that is carrying a pollutant, WHATEVER ITS LENGTH OR TONNAGE. Subs. 4(2) |
|
| 2) Every barge registered in Canada that is over 225 feet in length and over 1,500 net tons between Montréal and Québec (District No. 1), WHATEVER ITS CARGO. Subpara. 4(1)(a)(i) |
|
| 3) Every barge registered in Canada that is over 260 feet in length and 2,000 net tons between Québec and Les Escoumins (District No. 2), WHATEVER ITS CARGO. Subpara. 4(1)(a)(ii) |
|
| 4) Every barge not registered in Canada that is over 100 feet in length, WHATEVER ITS TONNAGE OR CARGO. Para. 4(1)(b) |
|
| 5) Every barge registered in Canada that is self-propelled - which accordingly operates without a tug - and which carries pollutants between certain ports or terminals in the Province of Quebec, WHATEVER ITS LENGTH OR TONNAGE. Para. 4(3)(e) |
|
| Pursuant to section 4 of the Regulations, the following barges are not subject to compulsory pilotage: |
|
| 1) Every barge registered in Canada that is less than 225 feet in length or less than 1,500 net tons in District No. 1 - between Montréal and Québec - PROVIDED IT IS NOT CARRYING A POLLUTANT. Subpara. 4(1)(a)(i) et subs. 4(2) |
|
| 2) Every barge registered in Canada that is less than 260 feet in length or less than 2,000 net tons in District No. 2 - between Québec and Les Escoumins - PROVIDED IT IS NOT CARRYING A POLLUTANT. Subpara. 4(1)(a)(ii) et subs. 4(2) |
|
| 3) Every barge not registered in Canada that is less than 100 feet in length, WHATEVER ITS TONNAGE OR CARGO. Para. 4(1)(b) |
|
| 4) Every barge registered in Canada that is self-propelled, which is not carrying a pollutant and which operates between certain ports or terminals in the Province of Quebec, WHATEVER ITS LENGTH OR TONNAGE. Para. 4(3)(e) |
|
[10] It follows that while the Trial Judge was right to conclude that the tug was not subject to compulsory pilotage, he was wrong to conclude that the barge was not. To conclude, as he did, that "the Regulations, which are vague and imprecise, do not operate to make non-propelled barges, which are not manned by Canadian masters and officers and not even equipped with facilities for a pilot on board, subject to compulsory pilotage" is to stretch the definition of "ship" in the Act and the text of the Regulations.
[11] In our view, this amounts to misreading the Act and the Regulations, and misunderstanding the meaning of subsection 4(2) of the Regulations, which extends, rather than narrowing, the application of compulsory pilotage, which is already prescribed by subsection 4(1), to a barge, and transforms the exemption set out in subsection 4(3) into a rule of general application. Moreover, the word "pilot" is defined as "any person . . . who has the conduct [of a ship]" and a pilot may very well have the conduct of a barge from on board a tug, which, according to the evidence, is the way it is done.
[12] As it was initially commenced, the action seemed to indicate that the LPA was also claiming charges in relation to pilotage services for the tug. Of course, this is not possible because the tug is not subject to compulsory pilotage and had not itself requested that a pilot be present. In fact, what the LPA meant was that in order to establish the amount of the charges payable in relation to the barge, it could set a tariff which would take into account the fact that pilotage is more expensive when towing is involved than when a ship is piloted without the assistance of a tug. Accordingly, in setting its tariff, the LPA decided to take into consideration the dimensions not only of the towed ship but also of the tug. It was certainly within its powers to do so. Taking the barge"s dimensions into account in establishing the pilotage charges payable in relation to the barge alone does not make the tug subject to compulsory pilotage.
[13] The appeal will accordingly be allowed, the judgment of the Trial Judge will be reversed, the Laurentian Pilotage Authority"s action will be maintained and the defendants will be ordered to pay the Authority the sum of $38,653,98 with interest from the commencement of proceedings, as well as costs both at trial and on appeal.
Robert Décary
J.A.
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 19980611
Docket: A-1027-96
Between:
LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE
AUTHORITY
Plaintiff-Appellant
AND
TECHNO NAVIGATION LTÉE
-and-
TECHNO BARGES INC.
Defendants-Respondents
AND
THE SHIPS:
M.T. "TECHNO VENTURE"
BARGE "JEAN RAYMOND"
Defendants-Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE OF CAUSE: LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE |
AUTHORITY
Plaintiff-Appellant
AND
TECHNO NAVIGATION LTÉE
TECHNO BARGES INC.
Defendants-Respondents
AND
THE SHIPS: M.T. "TECHNO VENTURE"
BARGE "JEAN RAYMOND"
Defendants-Respondents
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 11, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARCEAU, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LÉTOURNEAU)
DELIVERED FROM
| THE BENCH BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Décary |
APPEARANCES:
Guy P. Major for the appellant
Catherine Garant for the respondents
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Guy P. Major
Montréal, Québec for the appellant
Langlois Gaudreau
Québec, Quebec for the respondents
Email this Content