COURT FILE NO.: 384/04
DATE: 20050322
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
O’DRISCOLL, LANE AND LINHARES DE SOUSA JJ.
B E T W E E N:
ROUTE EXPRESS INC. (DEREGE LEMMA)
Applicant
- and -
ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD, GARY R. STANLEY (Chair) ROBERT Q.’S AIRBUS INC.
Respondent
In Person
John T. Petrosoniak, for the Respondent, Ontario Highway Transport Board
Ruth P. Orton-Pert, for the Respondent, Robert Q.’s Airbus Inc.
HEARD at Toronto: March 22, 2005
O’DRISCOLL J.: (Orally)
[1] The applicant, Route Express Inc. (Route), brings an application for judicial review asking that the order of the Ontario Highway Transport Board (Board), dated January 21, 2004, be set aside and quashed and that Robert Q.’s X-800 licence be revoked.
[2] The applicant alleges that Robert Q.’s Airbus Inc. (Robert Q.) is operating in contravention of its Extra-provincial X-800 Operating Licence by providing a service between the City of Windsor and Detroit Metropolitan Airport, a service allegedly not authorized by Robert Q.’s licence.
[3] The Board had one of its investigators investigate the allegations. He interviewed various persons and his report was filed at the Board’s hearing and it appears in the material before us as Tab “I” of Robert Q.’s Appeal Record.
[4] The Board held a hearing and heard viva voce evidence from those who wished to testify. After the hearing on January 14, 2004, the Board reserved the matter and released its four (4) page order on January 21, 2004. The Board held that Robert Q. was operating within its Extra-provincial X-800 licence.
[5] In the reasons of the Board, it was held that Robert Q. held a valid licence from the Board, was operating legally within the terms of the licence and the existing legislation and that Route (Mr. Lemma), had provided no evidence to the contrary. The Board, in its reasons, pointed out that Mr. Lemma was under the misapprehension that Route’s licence was a “monopoly licence” and he was further under the misapprehension that Robert Q.’s licence still had the conditions imposed in 1991. Mr. Lemma did not appreciate that those conditions were removed by the Board on June 23, 1994. The Board dismissed the application and assessed costs against Route in the amount of $2,650.00, payable to the Minister of Finance of Ontario and $750.00 payable to Robert Q.
[6] A privative clause covers the Board. (see s.28 of the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.0.19). No appeal is provided. The Board’s business is to grant or refuse, and if granted, to police licences. It is the sole activity of the Board.
[7] We find no basis to say that the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or failed to afford natural justice to the applicant. We are of the view that the Board’s decision was not patently unreasonable and there is no basis upon which this Court should intervene. The application is, therefore, dismissed.
[8] With the concurrence of my colleagues, I have endorsed the back of the Application Record as follows: “The application is dismissed for the oral reasons of even date (recorded). Counsel for the Ontario Highway Transport Board suggests costs at $500.00 and counsel for Robert Q. seeks costs at $2,500.00. In all the circumstances of this application, costs are fixed and payable by the applicant as follows: the applicant to pay to Robert Q. costs of $2,500.00 within 30 days. No costs to the Ontario Highway Transport Board.”
O’DRISCOLL J.
LANE J.
LINHARES DE SOUSA J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 22, 2005
Date of Release: April 25, 2005
COURT FILE NO.: 384/04
DATE: 20050322
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
O’DRISCOLL, LANE AND LINHARES DE SOUSA JJ.
B E T W E E N:
ROUTE EXPRESS INC. (DEREGE LEMMA)
Applicant
- and -
ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD, GARY R. STANLEY (Chair) ROBERT Q.’S AIRBUS INC.
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
O’DRISCOLL J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 22, 2005
Date of Release: April 25, 2005