Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General)
- Citation
- 2016 SCC 1
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 15 January 2016
- Posture
- Administrative Law Regulatory Review / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Federal Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 15 January 2016
- Posture
- Administrative Law Regulatory Review / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Federal Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appellant failed to adduce facts sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Canadian Transportation Agency acted properly; because the Agency had statutory authority to make the amending Regulations, the appeal must be dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs to the Attorney General of Canada.
02
Material facts
Parties
Canadian Pacific Railway Company
Appellant Counsel: Douglas C. Hodson, Q.C.; Kristen A. MacDonaldAttorney General of Canada
Respondent Counsel: Mark R. Kindrachuk, Q.C.; Alexander PlessCanadian Transportation Agency
Respondent Counsel: Valérie LagacéRailway Association of Canada
Intervener Counsel: Nadia Effendi; Guy J. PratteAmounts and remedies
- Interswitching Distance (km): 160
- Previous Interswitching Distance (km): 30
03
Procedural history
Posture
Administrative Law Regulatory Review / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Federal Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Canadian Transportation Agency acted improperly in issuing the amending Regulations by following government directives
- 02
Whether the presumption that an administrative agency acted properly was rebutted by the appellant
- 03
Whether government directives can invalidate agency regulations absent supporting factual proof
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant accepted that the Agency had statutory authority to issue the amending Regulations but argued the Agency acted improperly by following government directives to expand the interswitching distance in the Prairie Provinces and sought a declaration that the Regulations were null and void on process grounds.
- Respondent
- The respondents argued the Agency acted within its statutory powers under the Canada Transportation Act and related legislation, the Regulations were valid, the presumption that administrative bodies act properly applies, and the appellant failed to adduce facts sufficient to rebut that presumption.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Administrative law principle/case law
Presumption that administrative bodies act within their jurisdiction and follow proper procedure
- 02
Administrative law principle/case law
Burden on challenger to adduce facts to rebut the presumption of regularity
- 03
Canada Transportation Act; Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act
Agency authority to make interswitching regulations under enabling statutes
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appellant failed to adduce facts sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Canadian Transportation Agency acted properly; because the Agency had statutory authority to make the amending Regulations, the appeal must be dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted the appellant conceded the Agency had authority to issue the Regulations and did not challenge their substantive content.
- Absent factual evidence showing that political directives contaminated the decision-making process, the presumption of regularity remains intact.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
- Appeal dismissed with costs to the Attorney General of Canada.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 15 January 2016
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 15 January 2016
Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General) Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2016-01-15 Neutral citation 2016 SCC 1 Report [2016] 1 SCR 6 Case number 36223 Judges McLachlin, Beverley; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Cromwell, Thomas Albert; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell On appeal from Federal Court of Appeal Subjects Administrative law Notes SCC Case Information: 36223 Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 SCC 1, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 6 Appeal heard: December 9, 2015 Judgment rendered: January 15, 2016 Docket: 36223 Between: Canadian Pacific Railway Company Appellant and Attorney General of Canada and Canadian Transportation Agency Respondents - and – Railway Association of Canada Intervener Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ. Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 4) The Court Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 SCC 1, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 6 Canadian Pacific Railway Company Appellant v. Attorney General of Canada and Canadian Transportation Agency Respondents and Railway Association of Canada Intervener Indexed as: Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General) 2016 SCC 1 File No.: 36223. 2015: December 9; 2016: January 15. Present: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ. on appeal from the federal court of appeal Administrative law — Boards and tribunals — Regulatory boards — Canadian Transportation Agency — Transportation law — Railways — Regulatory process — Presumption Agency acted properly in amending rail regulations — No facts adduced rebutting presumption — Regulations Amending the Railway Interswitching Regulations,
SOR/2014‑193. Held: The appeal should be dismissed. Statutes and Regulations Cited Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10 . Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, S.C. 2014, c. 8 . Regulations Amending the Railway Interswitching Regulations, SOR/2014‑193. APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (Noël C.J. and Dawson and Webb JJ.A.), No. 14‑A‑56, dated October 28, 2014, dismissing an application for leave to appeal, pursuant to s. 41 of the Canada Transportation Act , the Regulations Amending the Railway Interswitching Regulations issued by the Canadian Transportation Agency. Appeal dismissed. Douglas C. Hodson, Q.C., and Kristen A. MacDonald, for the appellant. Mark R. Kindrachuk, Q.C., and Alexander Pless, for the respondent the Attorney General of Canada. Valérie Lagacé, for the respondent the Canadian Transportation Agency. Nadia Effendi and Guy J. Pratte, for the intervener. The following is the judgment delivered by [1] The Court — On August 1, 2014, Regulations Amending the Railway Interswitching Regulations, SOR/2014-193 (the “amending Regulations”), came into force. The amending Regulations were issued by the Canadian Transportation Agency, pursuant to its powers under the Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10 , and following passage by Parliament of the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, S.C. 2014, c. 8 . The amending Regulations extend the
interswitching distance limit from 30 km to 160 km for all commodities in the three Prairie Provinces, and prescribe new rates for interswitching rail traffic within that zone. [2] The appellant, Canadian Pacific Railway Company, asks this Court to declare the amending Regulations to be null and void, on the ground that the Agency acted improperly in issuing them by following government directives to expand the interswitching distance limit in the Prairie Provinces. The appellant concedes that the Agency was empowered to issue the amending Regulations; its complaint is not with the content of the amending Regulations, but with the process followed by the Agency. [3] The appellant also concedes that the Agency is presumed to have acted properly in making its decision to issue the amending Regulations. The question, therefore, is whether the appellant has adduced facts rebutting this presumption. In our view, it has not done so. [4] The appeal is dismissed, with costs to the Attorney General of Canada. Appeal dismissed with costs to the Attorney General of Canada. Solicitors for the appellant: MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman, Saskatoon. Solicitor for the respondent the Attorney General of Canada: Attorney General of Canada, Saskatoon. Solicitor for the respondent the Canadian Transportation Agency: Canadian Transportation Agency, Gatineau. Solicitors for the intervener: Borden Ladner Gervais, Toronto.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.