Date:
20080416
Docket: A-284-07
Citation: 2008 FCA 136
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE
MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
Appellant
and
MACRO
AUTO LEASING INC.
Respondent
Heard at Toronto,
Ontario, on April 16,
2008.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on April 16, 2008.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU
J.A.
Date:
20080416
Docket:
A-284-07
Citation:
2008 FCA 136
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU
J.A.
SHARLOW
J.A.
TRUDEL
J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF
TRANSPORT
Appellant
and
MACRO AUTO
LEASING INC.
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto,
Ontario, on April 16, 2008)
LÉTOURNEAU
J.A.
[1]
We
have not been convinced that Simpson J. (judge) of the Federal Court committed
an error which warrants our intervention in concluding that the material seized
in a shipping container was not a vehicle within the meaning of section 2 of
the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, S.C. 1993, c. 16 (Act). Vehicle is defined
in section 2 as follows:
|
“vehicle” means any
vehicle that is capable of being driven or drawn on roads by any means
other than muscular power exclusively, but does not include any vehicle
designed to run exclusively on rails.
|
“véhicule” Véhicule
automobile, ou faisant partie d’un attelage automobile, qui peut circuler
sur la route; la présente définition ne vise toutefois pas les véhicules
qui circulent exclusivement sur rail.
|
[Emphasis added]
[2]
By
no stretch of the imagination can it be said under the present definition of
vehicle that the body/chassis seized in this case, without the wheels, the
tires, the wheel hub adaptors, the differential, the brakes, the rotors, the
bearings, the electrical fittings, the steering shaft and column, the battery,
the engine, the transmission, the clutch, the driving shaft, the ignition, the
carburator, the water pump, the motor mounts, the alternator and the
distributor, to name just a few of the missing components of what is to become
a Shelby Cobra once assembled, is a vehicle within the meaning of the Act.
[3]
While
the body/chassis seized in this case at the time of importation had the
potential for conversion into a vehicle, that conversion would not be possible
within a relatively short period of time with relative ease: see R. v.
Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398, at paragraph 39.
[4]
In
her memorandum of fact and law and at the hearing, counsel for the appellant
submitted that, in determining the meaning of “vehicle” in section 2 of the
Act, the judge should have deferred to the expertise of the inspector who is a
college educated automotive engineering technologist. The appellant’s position
in this respect is that, because of his education and experience, the inspector
was in a better position than the judge to determine whether the seized item
was a vehicle under the Act. We disagree. The determination of the meaning of “vehicle”
involved a question of law reviewable on a standard of correctness. Its
application to the facts of this case raised a question of mixed fact and law.
[5]
In
our respectful view, the appellant misconstrued at law the term “vehicle”. Had
he properly construed the term and applied it to the facts of this case, he
would have come to the conclusion that the judge and this Court reach.
[6]
Having
said that, we do not endorse paragraph 40 of the judge’s reasons in which she
appears to have redefined the term “vehicle”.
[7]
We
appreciate that the appellant, in adopting a very broad interpretation of the
term “vehicle”, is attempting to fulfill his very important statutory mandate
to ensure the safety of vehicles. However, his statutory powers cannot be used
to give the statutory definition a meaning it cannot reasonably bear.
[8]
The
appeal will be dismissed with costs.
“Gilles
Létourneau”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-284-07
STYLE OF CAUSE: THE
MINISTER OF TRANSPORT v.
MACRO AUTO LEASING INC.
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto,
Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: April 16, 2008
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Liz Tinker
|
FOR
THE APPELLANT
|
|
David W. Chodikoff
Matthew
J. Diskin
|
FOR
THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
Heenan Blaikie LLP
Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content