PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
BETWEEN:
and
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] This application for judicial review concerns the Respondent’s (Transport Canada’s) decision of January 25, 2006 to seize a shipping container which held two partially assembled Superformance cars and related parts (the Container’s Contents) which Macro Auto Leasing Inc. (the Applicant) was importing from South Africa (the Seizure). The Seizure in this case was the second seizure and detention of components of Superformance cars on the basis that they are “vehicles” as that term is defined in section 2 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, R.S.C. 1993, c.16 (the Act).
[2] The first seizure was made on April 21, 2005 following an investigation of the Applicant’s business operations. As a result of that investigation, Transport Canada concluded that the Applicant was offering to sell its customers complete operational newly manufactured cars.
[3] On July 11, 2005, following the first seizure, Justice Tallock of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice wrote a six-paragraph endorsement and ordered the release of the seized items on the basis that their continued detention would cause the Applicant undue hardship. Although he referred to the seized items as “various components of a car kit” it is clear that he did not turn his mind to whether they constituted a “vehicle” under the Act. For this reason, I have concluded that his decision does not contribute to a resolution of the issues in this case.
THE EVIDENCE
[4] The Applicant’s evidence is found in the affidavit of Leonard Skok of March 28, 2006 (the Skok Affidavit). Mr. Skok is the President of the Applicant.
[5] Transport Canada relies on the affidavit of Harry George Baergen sworn on May 26, 2006 (the Baergen Affidavit). He is a Senior Regulation Enforcement Officer in the Enforcement Section of the Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate of Transport Canada.
[6] Both deponents were cross examined on their affidavits.
THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT
[7] The Baergen Affidavit provides an introduction to the Act. It states:
5. Transport’s Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate (the “Directorate”), in which I work, was created in 1969 to ensure the federal government plays a significant leadership role in dealing with the road safety problem in Canada…
10. To achieve the goal of reducing risk of death, injury and damage, the Act empowers the Governor in Council to establish national safety standards for the design and construction of motor vehicles.
11. These standards, known as the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (the “Regulations”) define minimum performance, equipment, and prescribed information requirements for all classes of vehicles failing [sic] under the Act. Such requirements include, inter alia, lighting performance, braking performance, occupant crash protection, vehicle controls and displays, flammability of passenger compartment materials, Vehicle Identification Numbers, as well as many other safety-related aspects of vehicle design and performance.
12. Schedule III of the Regulations constitutes the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (the “CMVSS”). The standards provide performance and design criteria at the point of manufacture for vehicle safety systems in order to ensure that only safe vehicles are manufactured in or imported into Canada.
13. The CMVSS may apply singly to a vehicle class, or to multiple classes. For instance, CMVSS 115 (Vehicle Identification Number) is applicable to all classes of vehicles. However, CMVSS 121 (Air Brake Systems) is applicable only to heavy-duty vehicles, such as trucks and buses.
14. Many of the CVMSS require testing of prototypes to certify the entire production as meeting the CVMSS. For example, CMVSS 301 (Fuel System Integrity) requires a crash test, CMVSS 208 (Occupant Protection) requires a crash test for airbag deployment, and CMVSS 210 (Seat Belt Anchorages) requires a pull test for seat belt anchorages.
15. The Act stipulates that in order for a vehicle to be imported into Canada the vehicle must conform to the CMVSS…
CAR KITS AND KIT CARS IN CANADA AND THE U.S.A.
[8] The Baergen Affidavit deals with these topics in the following manner:
Car Kits
21. A “car kit” or “starter kit” is a collection of vehicle parts. Such kits may be imported into Canada by a person, perhaps a car building hobbyist, for the purposes of merging the kit with a used donor car, or other donor parts, sourced entirely in Canada, from sources unrelated to the kit manufacturer, to build his/her own car.
22. A popular example of a car kit involves the Shelby Cobra. The car building hobbyist may start with the frame of a 1985 Ford Mustang, sourced from a Canadian wrecking yard. By merging it with the appropriate car kit which he/she has imported, he/she can create a home-built replica of a 1966 Shelby Cobra. The importation of the car kit, subsequently merged with the donor parts, is not subject to the Act, because no vehicle was imported nor was the vehicle newly manufactured by a “company” as defined in the Act.
23. Once the car kit is completed by the hobbyist home-builder, which could take a few weeks or a few years, the car is registered with the province as a “home built” car, and it is assigned a serial number by the province after a provincial safety check is carried out. Neither the car kit, nor the home build car, nor the hobbyist building it falls under the Act, but instead they fall under the provincial Highway Traffic Act once the finished car is being used … on the provincial roads.
34. The key distinction for the purpose of the Act is that an importation of vehicle parts does not have the capability of being driven or drawn as manufactured by the manufacturer of the car kit, nor does it have the capability of being certified by the manufacturer because there are too many parts missing that the car kit manufacturer does not supply. Therefore, the kit does not fit the definition of “vehicle”, and thereby the parts do not fall under the Act…
Kit Cars
24. A “kit car”, “turnkey car” or “replicar”, on the other hand, is a “passenger car” within the broader definition of “vehicle”. These are complete vehicles often shipped partially disassembled to facilitate shipping or to facilitate minor finishing operations once they reach their destination. As a “kit car” or “replicar” is in effect a motor vehicle, assembled or disassembled, such vehicles are subject to the Act and must therefore comply with the CMVSS.
25. The primary concern of government regulators in Canada and the U.S., including Transport, with kit car manufacturers, is that they do not comply with most U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (being the U.S. equivalent of the CMVSS) nor with the CMVSS. Accordingly, their vehicles are not manufactured to the same safety standards required of the vehicles produced by all other vehicle manufacturers.
29. Based on my experience, kit car companies are not interested in complying with Canadian federal safety standards mainly because this requires engineering expertise. In most cases, the primary focus of the business is on aesthetic appeal, performance and replication, rather than engineering. Secondly, because the U.S. loophole already facilitates access to the large U.S. market, manufacturers may not wish to incur the engineering costs necessary to meet the CMVSS solely to gain ready access to the much smaller Canadian market.
[9] What Mr. Baergen describes as the “U.S. loophole” is the fact that completely assembled Kit Cars, minus engines, can be imported into the U.S.A. without complying with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
Transport Canada’s Practice
[10] The Baergen Affidavit states:
31. By their very nature, the distinction between a car kit and kit car is not amenable to any fixed standard. Rather, they are concepts that sit along a spectrum. On one end is a collection of vehicle parts. On the other is a complete vehicle. Any given shipment of vehicle parts must be examined closely to determine whether it constitutes mere parts, to which the Act does not apply, or whether it may constitute a vehicle pursuant to the Act.
32. Under the supervision of this Directorate, a procedure has been adopted for the processing of importations related to this industry. This procedure involves decision making on a case by case basis in recognition of the fact that the nature of the industry and its products do not allow for a “one size fits all” approach. The procedure, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”, has as its main features:
(i) The importer notifies this Directorate when it seeks to import a vehicle or vehicle parts;
(ii) The importer faxes a list of parts to the Directorate where a detailed analysis is undertaken to determine whether the collection of parts is a starter kit, some other miscellaneous collection of parts, or perhaps a kit car to which the Act applies;
(iii) If it is a shipment of parts, a letter is issued to the importer, which letter advises the importer, inter alia, that:
(a) A determination has been made to the effect that the shipment constitutes a car kit or a collection of parts rather than a “vehicle” under the Act, provided the shipment represents the importer’s entire shipment;
(b) It is illegal to import a non-compliant motor vehicle into Canada, but stand alone replacement parts do not require certification;
(c) The absence of an engine does not disqualify a vehicle from the definition of “vehicle” under the Act; and
(d) If, in the aggregate, the parts come close to constituting a motor vehicle, the letter is not to be used for shipments beyond the one to which the letter applies.
(iv) The letter, a form copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “E”, is then used by the importer to complete the importation of the starter kit of vehicle parts.
[11] Transport Canada has issued a document entitled “Kit Car” Information. It appears as Exhibit T to the Skok Affidavit. It includes the following statement in which Transport Canada describes itself as “TC”:
In general, TC focuses on manufacturers and importers of motor vehicles, and TC also has jurisdiction with individuals importing kit cars. But TC has no jurisdiction with the home-builders who are gathering parts from various sources with intentions to build their own car for their own use. The home-builder can buy parts in the form of a starter kit (which usually needs a donor car) as long as the home builder is not importing a disassembled motor vehicle. If the home-builder imports too many parts, to the point where TC can define it as a motor vehicle, then the home builder becomes a motor vehicle importer, and falls under TC’s jurisdiction.
THE CONTAINER’S CONTENTS
[12] Following the Seizure, the Notice of Detention dated January 25, 2006 described the contents of the shipping container as follows:
1 container with two (2) cars inside (assembled). Also included are boxes containing seats, fuel tanks, exhaust parts, etc. Also keys found for one car. Container ID # MSCU 3815003 1 20 DU
Serial #s – 2390 and 2388
[13] The Baergen Affidavit indicates at paragraph 55 that Mr. Baergen inspected the Container’s Contents and found them in the state described at paragraph 45 of his affidavit. However, on cross-examination, he acknowledged that the container had not been thoroughly inspected. For this reason, I have relied on the Skok Affidavit. It describes the Container’s Contents in the following terms in paragraphs 4 and 6. They state in part:
4. When the imported parts reach port, they are received in a manner such that the body is attached to the frame of the car kit. The door, hood, and trunk lid are attached to the body of the car kit. The body of the car kit, including the attached components, arrives painted. Due to the manner in which the parts arrive, the parts may be said to resemble a very basic outline of what is commonly considered to be a motor vehicle. . .
5. The major parts or components that are required to provide the frame and body with the ability to move or be moved, as well as those that are required to convert a bare “vehicle-looking” frame into a functioning vehicle are listed in Exhibit “C” to this affidavit. None of these parts are in the container seized by Transport Canada …
[14] The parts listed on Exhibit “C” are listed below. I will describe them as the “Completion Parts for the Body/Chassis” and the “Completion Parts for the Power Train”.
Completion Parts for the Body/Chassis
|
Wheels |
Tires |
Wheel Hub Adaptors |
|
Wheel Hubs and Retention Nuts or Spinners |
Steering Rack and Pinion |
Lower Steering Column and Joints |
|
Front Spindles |
Rear Sway Bar and Link Stabilizer |
Scuttle Bracket |
|
Front Wheel Hubs |
Rear Wheel Hubs |
Front Coil Springs |
|
Rear Coil Springs |
Front Shock Assembly |
Rear Shock Assembly |
|
Left Rear Side Shaft |
Right Rear Side Shaft |
Left Side Inner and Outer Constant Velocity Joint |
|
Right Side Inner and Outer Constant Velocity Joint |
Differential Mount |
Differential |
|
Differential Breather Pipe |
Front and Rear Rotors |
Front and Rear Wheel Bearings |
|
Tie Rods Left Side |
Tie Rods Right Side |
Front Brake Disc Left and Right Side |
|
Rear Brake Disc Left and Right Side |
Rear Caliper Brackets |
Front Caliper Brackets |
|
Rear Brake Calipers |
Front Brake Calipers |
Front Brake Pads |
|
Rear Brake Pads |
Brake Line Flex Hoses and Brake Line to Complete Partial Lines |
Brake Fluid |
|
Emergency Brake Unit plus all fittings |
Fuel Tank Hoses and Neck |
Fuel Tank Filler Cap |
|
All electrical fittings Lights Lamps Indicators and Horn |
Battery |
Steering Column |
|
Steering shaft |
Brake Master Cylinder |
Upper and Lower Control Arms (6) |
Completion Parts for the Power Train
|
Engine |
Transmission |
Motor Mounts |
|
Motor Mount Pedestals |
Transmission Mounts |
Transmission Shifter |
|
Bell Housing |
Clutch Assembly |
Flywheel |
|
Clutch Slave Cylinder plus Bracket and Line |
Drive Shaft Assembly and Joints |
Oil Cooler |
|
Oil Lines |
Radiator Hoses |
Speedometer Cable and Adaptor |
|
Fuel Pump |
Fuel line Completion Hoses |
Alternator |
|
Ignition Module |
Water Pump |
Header Tank |
|
Carburetor and all Linkages |
Pulleys and Belts |
Distributor |
|
Power Leads |
|
|
[15] There is no issue that at the point of importation, the Container’s Contents did not have engines or wheels and they lacked all the parts described in paragraph 14 above.
[16] The Baergen Affidavit states at paragraph 46, that Superformance International (Superformance) is the company which manufactures and assembles Superformance cars in South Africa. However, in addition to shipping fully assembled cars (less power trains) Superformance also distributes cars in two separate shipments. One is the Containter’s Contents and the second is a package of the parts needed to complete the body/ chassis. These will be called Assembly Competion Kits. The Skok Affidavit makes it clear that Superformance cars do not use donor parts. Superformance manufactures the entire body/chassis. This means that when assembled in Canada, the car’s body/chassis is made entirely of parts manufactured by Superformance and shipped in containers and Assembly Completion Kits.
[17] Superformance’s own sales literature is found at Exhibit “G” to the Baergen Affidavit. It shows that Superformance cars are factory manufactured with all new parts in South Africa. For the US market, they are fully assembled replicars that buyers can fit with their choice of engine and transmission. The sales’ material also indicates that 99% of the cars are powered with Ford pushrod V8 engines.
[18] Superformance describes itself as the “best equipped replicar manufacturer in the world” with a modern hi-tech 150,000 sq. ft. factory and more than 400 employees.
THE INVESTIGATION
[19] The Skok Affidavit includes the following statements in paragraph 8 and 9:
· The Applicant does not assemble the Container’s Contents it imports.
· The Applicant does not supply Assembly Completion Kits. The customers must obtain them from third parties.
· The Applicant’s customers are required to locate third parties to supply them with the power train.
[20] However, to support these statements, Mr. Skok quotes certain provisions in a contract to which the Applicant is not a party. The contract is between Macro Autosports Inc. (the Dealer) and a prospective customer and is entitled “Replicar Chassis/Body Kit Purchase Agreement”. At page 4, the following provisions appear:
…Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that the acquisition and installation of a Transmission engine, steering system, suspension system and braking system is the sole responsibility of the Purchaser…The Purchaser further acknowledges and agrees that the Dealer expressly refuses to assist the Purchaser in the assembly or installation of any components or parts purchased by the Purchaser pursuant to this Purchase Agreement…
[21] As well, in section E(4), the contract provides that:
Purchaser agrees to assume full and sole responsibility for acquiring the steering system, braking system and suspension system required to cause the Product to be operable… Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that the Dealer will in no way assist with or facilitate the assembly of any components or parts, whether or not said components or parts are included in the Product purchased by the Purchaser pursuant to this Purchase Agreement.
[22] During his investigation Mr. Baergen discovered that Macro Autosports is operated by both Mr. Leonard Skok and his son Mr. Allan Skok. Its letterhead describes it as “Distributors of Superformance Complete Replicars”. Its open letter to potential customers which begins “Dear Cobra Enthusiast” and which is signed by Leonard and Allan Skok includes the following paragraphs which contradict the statements made in the contract described above:
The Replicars are imported into Canada in parts and components from our manufacturer in Port Elizabeth SA. Also, a final completion kit consisting of more components is purchased from the U.S. On your behalf Macro Autosports Inc. can arrange for the assembly process at a Canadian Superformance Certified workshop in Concord Ontario. Your Superformance Replicar can be on the road in a very short period of time, depending on your specific requirements.
A very important consideration is the aesthetic correctness of the Replicar. If and when one wants to resell a replica motor vehicle, those which hold value are the ones that were build as close as possible to their original look. Also, the Replicars are factory built, so they are all identical except for engine options.
On your behalf, we can arrange for the installation of Ford SVO Crate motors, and also specially built motors. The most highly recommended motors are the 351W, 392 and 460 Ford motors with 5 speed manual transmission or automatic. These recommended engines are built by racing engine builders, and not by stock production engine rebuilders! Recommended option pricing herewith.
[my emphasis]
[23] The Baergen Affidavit indicates that:
43. At the 2002 Canadian International Auto Show Mr. Skok advised me that he had a special relationship with the owners of Superformance so that he was able to purchase and import the vehicles as car kits even though Superformance only manufactures complete vehicles without engines and transmissions.
[24] Further, the Baergen Affidavit states:
44. During an unannounced visit to Macro’s offices in April 2003, I observed three Superformance vehicles in the showroom: two completed “S1 Roadsters” with power train, and one completed “Cobra” without a power train. The cars were displayed with price lists, which stated no further assembly was required except the power train. The Cobra was listed at $57,000 without power train, and $78,000 with power train.
[25] As well, the Baergen Affidavit indicates that:
47. …upon the importation of the vehicle and the peripheral parts, Macro then arranges to sell, directly or indirectly through a related company a complete vehicle, including owner’s manual and keys, to a Canadian customer. While the precise method for completing this transaction may change from time to time, one scenario involves the use of reciprocal contracts between companies owned and operated by the Skoks.
[26] The Baergen Affidavit also discloses that, with regard to Superformance car Serial Number SPO1643, Macro Autosports supplied the body, wheels and related parts and Feature Auto Leasing, another company in which Mr. Leonard Skok was an officer and director supplied the Assembly Completion Kit.
[27] Finally, Macro Autosports’ invoice dated May 15, 2003 shows that one 2003 Superformance MK 111, Serial SPO1643 was sold to a Mr. Douglas Johnston of Winnipeg for $77,950.00 which is roughly the price Mr. Baergen saw displayed in the Applicant’s showroom for this vehicle with a power train.
[28] Based on this evidence, Transport Canada concluded that:
· Superformance body/chassis parts are imported into Canada in two steps – in shipping containers and in Assembly Completion Kits.
· In Canada, the Applicant and related companies offer assembled Superformance cars for sale with power trains installed and, once all the Superformance parts have been received, the Superformance car can be on the road in a very short time.
THE ISSUES
1. Are the Container’s Contents Vehicles?
[29] In Bell ExpressVu Ltd. Partnership v. Rex, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559, at paragraph 26, the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed the following approach to statutory interpretation taken from E.A. Driedger’s, Construction of Statutes, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983) at 87:
Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.
[30] The Act defines a vehicle as follows in section 2:
|
"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. [my emphasis] |
«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. [je souligne] |
[31] In R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398, the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the definition of a prohibited weapon in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 and the meaning to be given to “capable” in that context. A prohibited weapon was defined as one “that is capable of firing bullets in rapid succession”.
[32] The weapon at issue was a semi-automatic Mini-Uzi which the respondent tried to register with the Ontario Provincial Court as a restricted weapon. However, the Provincial Court heard expert evidence and concluded that it was a prohibited weapon for the following reasons:
It is obvious from the evidence with some minor work on the plate that the obstruction could be removed, however, I am more influenced by the fact that the entire trigger mechanism can be quite easily removed and replaced by a fully automatic trigger mechanism and I am also influenced by the evidence that the trigger mechanism from the replica weapon could be attached to the weapon and it would fire in a fully automatic mode. This aspect of the matter makes control in itself almost impossible as there is no control over the sale of replica weapons. Constable Soley’s evidence also indicated that alternate parts were readily available from various sources and notwithstanding the restricted aspect of some manufacturers parts supplies it does appear that the adaptability of fully automatic parts to this weapon remains an easy exercise.
[33] When the Supreme Court of Canada looked at these facts it adopted a purposive approach to the interpretation of capable and said at paragraph 31:
In my view, any uncertainty as to whether the word “capable” means either “immediately capable” [page 414] or “readily capable”, is resolved as soon as the word is interpreted in light of the purpose and goals of the prohibited weapons provisions of the Code. Therefore, there is no need to resort to the rule of strict construction in this case.
[34] The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed dictionary definitions of “capable” and concluded that it includes potential for conversion. However, the Court noted that some reasonable restriction on the capability of conversion was required and concluded that capable meant capable of conversion to an automatic weapon in a “relatively short period of time with relative ease” (see Hasselwander at para. 39).
[35] Against this background, the purpose of the Act and the time and effort required to convert the Container’s Contents into operational cars must be examined.
[36] The Applicant says that it is clear that the Container’s Contents are neither immediately nor readily capable of being driven. There are no engines and no wheels in the seized container. On the other hand, Transport Canada says that the Container’s Contents should be viewed as readily capable of being driven because with the body/chassis Completion Parts in the Completion Assembly Kit and an engine, operational cars which the Applicant sells, can be on the road in a short time.
[37] Transport Canada also says that the focus must be on motor vehicle safety. It says that the evidence shows that Superformance cars are manufactured and assembled in South Africa. For this reason, Transport Canada says they could be equipped with the engines which Superformance recommends and tested to show that they meet the CMVSS standards.
[38] While I have sympathy for Transport Canada’s position. It is hard to see that safety concerns justify Transport Canada’s view that the Container’s Contents are vehicles when as a hobby, a person can buy a car kit, locate donor parts from wrecking yards and other sources and assemble an operational car without any oversight by Transport Canada. These homemade vehicles which are cobbled together with parts from a variety of sources are legally driven on our roads if they pass provincial safety certification and registration requirements which are designed to ensure that cars are safe before they are driven. These requirements also apply to Superformance cars.
[39] I cannot conclude that safety considerations justify the very broad approach to the word “capable” suggested by Transport Canada. It simply cannot be the case that the Container’s Contents, which lack wheels and an engine, can be said to be readily capable of being driven when their assembly, even in a short time, could reasonably be expected to involve several days work by experts using specialized equipment.
[40] In my view, to be readily capable of being driven, a vehicle, when imported, must have an assembled body/chassis and an installed power train so that with a minimum of activity, including steps such as the addition of fuel and washer fluid, the inflation of tires, affixing mirrors and other minor parts removed or not installed for shipping and adding a battery, the vehicle is immediately capable of being driven. This conclusion means that Transport Canada overreached its authority when it took the position that the Container’s Contents which included two partly assembled chassis/frames with no wheels and no engines were capable of being driven on a road.
THE STANDARD OF REVIEW
[41] There is no dispute that the Container’s Contents were not “immediately” capable of being driven. The question is whether they were “readily” capable of being driven and the facts on that point were not in dispute. The Macro Autosports open letter states that the Container’s Contents with the addition of the parts in the Assembly Completion Kits and power trains could be assembled into operational cars in “a very short period of time”.
[42] The question before Transport Canada was one of statutory interpretation. In these circumstances, were the Container’s Contents “vehicles” as that term is used in section 2 of the Act?
[43] For this reason, I have reviewed the decision to seize the Container’s Contents using the correctness standard.
BIAS
[44] The Applicant alleges that Transport Canada has made arrangements with two other companies (Factory Five Racing (FFR) and MDA) to facilitate their imports but that it refuses to respond to the Applicant’s request for a meeting to reach a similar understanding.
[45] Transport denies that it has standing agreements involving accepted parts lists with either FFR or MDA. It says that both companies import car kits and that each shipment is assessed on the basis of the parts’ list supplied by the company for each shipment. Transport Canada says, and I accept, that if FFR and MDA are saying they have agreements with Transport which allow car kit importation, they are misrepresenting the situation. All they have is the opportunity to use the shipment approval process available to all parts importers.
FAILURE TO NEGOTIATE
[46] Transport Canada has concluded, fairly in my view, that representatives of the Applicant have misrepresented the full extent of their ability and willingness to sell complete Superformance cars. In these circumstances and given that criminal charges were laid, I can find no basis for criticizing Transport Canada under this heading.
MOOTNESS
[47] Finally, I should note that this application for judicial review of the Seizure is moot because the Container’s Contents were stolen from the Customs’ compound and have not been recovered. However, because the meaning of “vehicle” presents an ongoing issue for the Applicant, I agreed to decide this case as it relates to the term “vehicle” in section 2 of the Act.
JUDGMENT
This Court hereby declares that the Container’s Contents seized and detained by Transport Canada on January 25, 2006 were not vehicles under section 2 of the Act and that Transport Canada therefore had no authority for the Seizure under section 15 of the Act.
In the circumstances of this case, each party will bear its own costs.
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-402-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: MACRO AUTO LEASING INC. v. THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: December 14, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: SIMPSON J.
APPEARANCES:
|
David W. Chodikoff Lily Latner
|
|
|
Roger Flaim
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Goodman and Carr LLP Toronto, Ontario
|
|
|
John H. Sims Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice Toronto, Ontario |