Date: 20080206
Docket: A-177-07
Citation: 2008 FCA 42
CORAM: DÉCARY
J.A.
NOËL
J.A.
SHARLOW
J.A.
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
COMPANY
Appellant
and
CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY,
ATCO PIPELINES, a division of ATCO GAS
AND PIPELINES
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SHARLOW J.A.
[1]
The
Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CPR) is appealing, with leave, Decision No.
709-R-2006 of the Canadian Transportation Agency dated December 22, 2006. In
that decision, the Agency granted the application of Atco Pipelines, a division
of Atco Gas and Pipelines Ltd., for the authority to construct above ground
safety valves for its natural gas pipeline at two locations where the pipeline
runs under the CPR railway right of way, parallel to the railway track. CPR argues
that this decision is not within the jurisdiction of the Agency. The issue
raised in the appeal is whether the portions of the pipeline on which the safety
valves are to be constructed fall within the definition of “utility crossing”
in section 100 of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10.
Statutory provisions
(A) Canada Transportation Act
[2]
The relevant provisions of the Canada
Transportation Act are sections 98, 100 and 101, and the definition of
“railway” in section 87. All of these provisions are found in Part III,
entitled “Railway Transportation”. The definition of “railway” reads as follows:
|
87. In
this Part,
[…]
"railway"
(chemin
de fer)
means
a railway within the legislative authority of Parliament and includes
(a) branches, extensions,
sidings, railway bridges, tunnels, stations, depots, wharfs, rolling stock,
equipment, stores, or other things connected with the railway, and
(b)
communications or signalling systems and related facilities and equipment
used for railway purposes […].
|
87. Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la
présente partie.
«chemin de fer » (railway) Chemin de fer
relevant de l’autorité législative du Parlement. Sont également visés :
a) les embranchements et prolongements,
les voies de garage et d’évitement, les ponts et tunnels, les gares et
stations, les dépôts et quais, le matériel roulant, l’équipement et les
fournitures, ainsi que tous les autres biens qui dépendent du chemin de fer;
b) les systèmes de
communication ou de signalisation et les installations et équipements
connexes qui servent à l’exploitation du chemin de fer […].
|
[3]
The
definition of “railway” quoted above was enacted in 1996. Its statutory
predecessor is found in section 2 of the Railway Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.
R-3 (S.C. 1952, c. 234). That definition reads as follows:
|
2.
(1) In this Act, and in any Special Act,
|
2.
(1) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la présente loi ainsi qu’à
toute loi spéciale:
|
|
[…]
“railway”
(chemin de fer) means any railway that the company has authority to
construct or operate, and includes all branches, extensions, sidings, stations,
depots, wharfs, rolling stock, equipment, stores, property real or personal
and works connected therewith, and also any railway bridge, tunnel or other
structure that the company is authorized to construct; and, except where the
context is inapplicable, includes street railway and tramway […].
|
[…]
« chemin
de fer » (railway) Tout chemin de fer que la compagnie est
autorisée à construire ou à exploiter, y compris tous les embranchements et
prolongements, toutes les voies de garage et d’évitement, toutes les gares et
stations, tous les dépôts et quais, tout le matériel roulant, tout
l’équipement, toutes les fournitures, tous les biens meubles ou immeubles et
tous les ouvrages qui en dépendent, et aussi tout pont de chemin de fer, tout
tunnel ou toute autre construction que la compagnie est autorisée à ériger
et, si le contexte le permit, le chemin de fer urbain et le tramway.
|
[4]
Sections
98, 100 and 101 of the Canada Transportation Act read as follows:
|
98. (1) A railway company shall not construct a railway
line without the approval of the Agency.
(2) The Agency
may, on application by the railway company, grant the approval if it
considers that the location of the railway line is reasonable, taking into
consideration requirements for railway operations and services and the
interests of the localities that will be affected by the line.
(3) No
approval is needed for the construction of a railway line
(a) within the right of
way of an existing railway line; or
(b) within 100 m of the centre line of an existing
railway line for a distance of no more than 3 km.
[…]
|
98. (1) La
construction d’une ligne de chemin de fer par une compagnie de chemin de fer
est subordonnée à l’autorisation de l’Office.
(2) Sur
demande de la compagnie, l’Office peut accorder l’autorisation s’il juge que
l’emplacement de la ligne est convenable, compte tenu des besoins en matière
de service et d’exploitation ferroviaires et des intérêts des localités qui
seront touchées par celle-ci.
(3) La
construction d’une ligne de chemin de fer à l’intérieur du droit de passage
d’une ligne de chemin de fer existante ou, s’il s’agit d’une ligne de chemin
de fer d’au plus trois kilomètres de long, à 100 mètres ou moins de l’axe
d’une telle ligne n’est pas subordonnée à l’autorisation.
[…]
|
|
100. In this section and section 101,
|
100. Les
définitions qui suivent s’appliquent au présent article et à l’article 101.
|
|
"road crossing" (franchissement routier)
means the part of a road that passes across, over or under a railway line,
and includes a structure supporting or protecting that part of the road or
facilitating the crossing;
"utility crossing"
(franchissement par desserte) means the part
of a utility line that passes over or under a railway line, and includes a
structure supporting or protecting that part of the utility line or
facilitating the crossing;
"utility line" (desserte) means a
wire, cable, pipeline or other like means of enabling the transmission of
goods or energy or the provision of services.
|
«desserte
» (utility line) Ligne servant au transport de produits ou d’énergie
ou à la fourniture de services, notamment par fil, câble ou canalisation.
«franchissement
par desserte » (utility crossing) Franchissement par une desserte d’un
chemin de fer par passage supérieur ou inférieur, ainsi que tous les éléments
structuraux facilitant le franchissement ou nécessaires à la partie visée de
la desserte.
«franchissement
routier » (road crossing) Franchissement par une route d’un chemin de
fer par passage supérieur, inférieur ou à niveau, ainsi que tous les éléments
structuraux facilitant le franchissement ou nécessaires à la partie visée de
la route.
|
|
101. (1) An agreement, or an amendment to an agreement,
relating to the construction, maintenance or apportionment of the costs of a
road crossing or a utility crossing may be filed with the Agency.
(2) When the
agreement or amendment is filed, it becomes an order of the Agency
authorizing the parties to construct or maintain the crossing, or
apportioning the costs, as provided in the agreement.
(3) If a
person is unsuccessful in negotiating an agreement or amendment mentioned in
subsection (1), the Agency may, on application, authorize the construction of
a suitable road crossing, utility crossing or related work, or specifying who
shall maintain the crossing.
(4) Section 16 of the Railway Safety Act applies
if a person is unsuccessful in negotiating an agreement relating to the
apportionment of the costs of constructing or maintaining the road crossing
or utility crossing.
|
101. (1) Toute entente, ou toute modification apportée à
celle-ci, concernant la construction, l’entretien ou la répartition des coûts
d’un franchissement routier ou par desserte peut être déposée auprès de
l’Office.
(2) L’entente
ou la modification ainsi déposée est assimilée à un arrêté de l’Office qui
autorise la construction ou l’entretien du franchissement, ou qui répartit
les coûts afférents, conformément au document déposé.
(3) L’Office
peut, sur demande de la personne qui ne réussit pas à conclure l’entente ou
une modification, autoriser la construction d’un franchissement convenable ou
de tout ouvrage qui y est lié, ou désigner le responsable de l’entretien du
franchissement.
(4) L’article
16 de la Loi sur la sécurité ferroviaire s’applique s’il n’y a pas
d’entente quant à la répartition des coûts de la construction ou de
l’entretien du franchissement.
|
[5]
Section
326 of the Railway Act, the statutory predecessor to section 101 of the Canada
Transportation Act, dealt with the construction and maintenance of utility
lines near railway lines. That provision reads as follows:
|
326.
(1) Lines, wires, other conductors or other structures or appliances for
telegraphic or telephonic purposes, or for the conveyance of power or
electricity for other purposes, shall not, without leave of the Commission,
except as provided in subsection (5), be constructed or maintained
|
326.
(1) Sauf de la manière prevue au paragraphe (5), il ne peut être érigé ni
maintenu, sans la permission de la Commission, de lignes, fils métalliques,
d’autres conducteurs ou d’autres structures ou appareils de transmission
téléphonique ou télégraphique, ou servant à la transmission de la force
motrice ou de l’électricité employee à d’autres objets:
|
|
(a)
along or across a railway, by any company other than the railway company
owning or controlling the railway; or
|
a) soit le long ou en travers d’un chemin de
fer, par une autre compagnie que la compagnie de chemin de fer possédant ou
contrôlant le chemin de fer;
|
|
(b)
across or near such other lines, wires, conductors, structures or appliances
that are within the legislative authority of Parliament.
|
b) soit en travers ou près d’autres semblables
lignes, fils métalliques, conducteurs, structures ou appareils qui relèvent
de l’autorité legislative du Parlement.
|
(B) Railway
Safety Act
[6]
The point of statutory interpretation in issue
in this case requires consideration of a related statute, the Railway Safety
Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 32 (4th Supp.). The Railway Safety Act
and the regulations made under that Act establish railway safety standards for,
among other things, the construction, maintenance and operation of a “railway
work”. Those regulations are administered by the Minister of Transport.
[7]
The term “railway work” is defined in section 4 of
the Railway Safety Act to include any “crossing work”, which in turn is
defined to include any “utility crossing”. The definition of “utility crossing”
in the Railway Safety Act is substantially the same as the definition in
the Canada Transportation Act.
Facts
[8]
Atco
owns and operates a natural gas pipeline in Alberta. The
pipeline was built by Atco’s corporate predecessor, Canadian Western Natural
Gas Company Limited. A portion of the pipeline, approximately 20 miles long, is
located on the CPR railway right of way between Kananaskis and Banff, between
mile 57.85 and mile 76.95. That 20 mile portion of the pipeline runs mostly
beside the CPR railway track on the railway right of way, and it crosses under
the railway track at three locations. Permission to build that 20 mile portion
of the pipeline was given to Canadian Western Natural Gas Company Limited by
CPR pursuant to an agreement dated June 30, 1951.
[9]
In
2004, Atco filed the 1951 agreement with the Canadian Transportation Agency
pursuant to subsection 101(1) of the Canada Transportation Act. By
virtue of subsection 101(2), the 1951 agreement became an order of the Agency
(Order No. 2004-AGR-478 dated November 16, 2004). The record discloses no
evidence that CPR objected to the filing of the 1951 agreement, or to the
resulting order.
[10]
It
is undisputed that the proposed construction of the above ground valves is part
of the maintenance of the existing pipeline and is intended to improve the
safety of the pipeline, in that installing the valves above ground will make it
easier to shut the pipeline down in an emergency.
[11]
It
is also undisputed that the 1951 agreement does not expressly permit the
construction of above ground valves on any portion of the pipeline covered by
the agreement. Atco attempted to negotiate an agreement with CPR for authorization
to construct the safety valves. When no agreement could be reached, Atco applied
to the Agency for authorization pursuant to subsection 101(3) of the Canada
Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10.
Standard of review
[12]
CPR
argues that, in an appeal from a decision of the Agency on a question of the
interpretation of a statutory provision that defines the Agency’s jurisdiction,
the standard of review is correctness. That argument is based on Canadian
Pacific Railway Co. v. Canada (Transportation Agency) (C.A.), [2003] 4 F.C.
558 (at paragraphs 14 to 21), which followed Barrie Public Utilities v.
Canadian Cable Television Assn., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 476 (at paragraphs 10 to
19).
[13]
The
Agency and Atco argue that the standard of review is reasonableness. They rely
on a more recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, Council of
Canadians with Disabilities v. Via Rail Canada Inc., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 650.
That was an appeal from a decision of this Court reversing a decision of the
Agency requiring Via Rail Canada Inc. to take certain steps to accommodate
disabled passengers. In that case Justice Abella, writing for the majority, discussed
the issue of standard of review at paragraphs 87 to 111. The key passages
appear at paragraphs 98 to 100, and read as follows:
[98] The Canada Transportation Act is highly
specialized regulatory legislation with a strong policy focus. The scheme
and object of the Act are the oxygen the Agency breathes. When
interpreting the Act, including its human rights components, the Agency is
expected to bring its transportation policy knowledge and experience to bear on
its interpretations of its assigned statutory mandate […].
[99] The allegedly jurisdictional determination the Agency
was being asked to make […] falls squarely within its statutory mandate.
It did not involve answering a legal question beyond its expertise, but rather
requires the Agency to apply its expertise to the legal issue assigned to it by
statute. […].
[100]
The Agency is responsible for interpreting its own legislation, including
what that statutory responsibility includes. The Agency made a
decision with many component parts, each of which fell squarely and
inextricably within its expertise and mandate. It was therefore entitled
to a single, deferential standard of review.
[14]
In
my view, the nature of the legal issue in this case is sufficiently like the
legal issue in the Via Rail case that the same standard of review should
apply. It follows that this Court is bound to apply the standard of review
applied in Via Rail, which is reasonableness.
Discussion
[15]
The
position of CPR is that the definition of “utility crossing” in the Canada
Transportation Act is not broad enough to capture the portions of the Atco
pipeline where Atco proposes to construct the above ground valves, because at
those locations the pipeline runs beside the railway track, not under it. That
position is based on a literal meaning of the words, “the part of a utility line that passes over or under a
railway line”, assuming the words “railway line” mean only “railway track” and
cannot have a broader meaning. CPR points to the distinction between the words
used in the current definition (“over or under a railway line”), and the words
used in its statutory predecessor, section 326 of the Railway Act
(“along or across a railway”). CPR also relies on section 98 of the Canada
Transportation Act (quoted above), in which the phrase “railway line” is apparently
used to mean a railway track. According to the interpretation proposed
by CPR, the fact that the work
is to be done on the railway right of way is irrelevant, no matter how close the
work may be to the railway track.
[16]
The position of Atco
and the Agency relies on the purposive, contextual approach adopted in Rizzo
and Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27 and numerous decisions of the
Supreme Court of Canada decided after that case. They argue that, given the
purpose of the statutory scheme and the statutory context, the phrase “railway
line” is intended to include the right of way on which a railway track is
located. It follows that the definition of “utility line” would include any
part of a pipeline that is on or under the railway right of way.
[17]
There is no
jurisprudence squarely on point. However, the Agency’s conclusion on this point
is supported by Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Canadian Transportation Agency) (1999), 251 N.R. 245 (F.C.A.). In that
case, this Court upheld the decision of the Agency that section 98 of the Canada
Transportation Act (quoted above), which requires the Agency approval for
the construction of a “railway line”, applied to the construction of a railway
yard. Justice Rothstein, then a member of this Court, explained as follows (at
paragraph 8):
|
[…]
A railway line is the structure upon which locomotives and rolling stock of
railway companies move and the communications or signalling system and
related facilities and equipment. Colloquially one might refer to
"railway tracks", but, of course much more is involved, as C.N.'s
counsel indicated, including the provision of grade and subgrade, including
the construction of embankments and cuts, the installation of facilities for
drainage, bridges, tunnels, and the track structure itself consisting of
ballast, ties, rails, spikes, switches, and the like. All these components
together, located on the right of way occupied by the railway company are
what permit and facilitate the movement of locomotives and rolling stock,
namely, a railway line.
|
[18]
The
Agency also points to its Decision No. 124-R-1997, in which the Agency applied
section 101 to an application for a power line to be placed on a railway right
of way, to run parallel to the track without crossing it. The application in
that case had been commenced under section 326 of the Railway Act
(quoted above), and continued under the Canada Transportation Act by
virtue of the Discontinuance and Continuance of Proceedings Order, 1996,
SOR/96-383.
[19]
Other
jurisprudential support for the proposition that a railway line includes the
railway right of way are found in decisions of the Agency relating to the
determination of the salvage value of a railway line, which includes the value
of the land comprising the right of way: Agency Decisions 175-R-1999 (Tisdale
Subdivision Decision), 467-R-1996 (CN Chatham Subdivision), 530-R-1998 (CP
Goderich Subdivision), 545-R-1999 (CN Arbourfield Subdivision), 542-R-2000 (CN
Cudworth Subdivision).
[20]
The
Minister of Transport apparently agrees with Atco and the Agency. The Minister has
asserted jurisdiction over the railway safety implication of the proposed construction
of above ground valves, relying on the definition of “utility crossing” in the Railway
Safety Act. As mentioned above, that definition is substantially the same
as the definition of “utility crossing” in the Canada Transportation Act.
It is undisputed that if the Agency has erred in its interpretation of the
definition of “utility crossing” in the Canada Transportation Act, the
Minister has made the same error in relation to the Railway Safety Act.
If that is the case, then a question would arise as to whether and to what
extent the Railway Safety Act gives the Minister the statutory authority
to consider railway safety issues in relation to the proposed work.
[21]
Given
the statutory context, the Agency’s interpretation gives the language of the
definition of “utility line” a meaning that it can reasonably bear, and that is
consistent with its purpose. In my view, the Agency’s interpretation of the
definition of “utility line” is reasonable. I see no basis for the intervention
of this Court.
[22]
I
would add that I would have proposed the same result if the standard of review
had been correctness. I do not accept that Parliament, in the course of
enacting the current interrelated statutory schemes for the regulation of
railways and railway safety, intended to adopt legislation that would preclude
those schemes from applying to the construction of above ground safety valves
on a natural gas pipeline located on a railway right of way.
Conclusion
[23]
For these
reasons, I would dismiss this appeal with costs.
“K. Sharlow”
“I
agree
Robert
Décary J.A.”
“I
agree
Marc
Noël J.A.”
Email this Content