Court File No.

: A-357-14
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
DR. GBOR LUKCS
Appellant
and
CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
Respondent

MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE APPELLANT,

DR. GBOR LUKCS

Dated: January 6, 2015

DR. GBOR LUKCS

Halifax, NS
[email protected]
Appellant

TO:

CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY

15 Eddy Street
Gatineau, Quebec J8X 4B3
Barbara Cuber
Tel: (819) 994 2226
Fax: (819) 953 9269
Solicitor for the Respondent,
Canadian Transportation Agency

TABLE

OF

C ONTENTS

PART I

S TATEMENT

OF

PART II

S TATEMENT

OF THE

PART III

S TATEMENT

OF

A.

B.

P OINTS

1
IN I SSUE

S UBMISSIONS

2
3

Subsections 41(2)(b)-(d) of the New Rules are

ultra vires and/or invalid

(i)

The standard of review

(ii) Applicable principles of statutory interpretation

(iii) Textual and contextual analysis

(iv) Purposive analysis

The New Rules are unreasonable and establish

inherently unfair procedures that are inconsistent
with the intent of Parliament

(i)

C.

FACTS

The standard of review

10

(ii) Complete code for unrepresented complainants

10

(iii) No opportunity to object to requests of non-parties

to intervene

11

(iv) Abolishment of the requirement to provide reasons

12

(v) Paper proceeding with no meaningful opportunity

to challenge statements of adverse witnesses or to
call oral evidence

13

Costs

22

PART IV

O RDER S OUGHT

23

PART V

L IST

25

OF

AUTHORITIES

1
Court File No.: A-357-14
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN:
DR. GBOR LUKCS
Appellant
and
CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
Respondent

MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE APPELLANT,

DR. GBOR LUKCS
PART I STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.

The present appeal, brought with leave of this Honourable Court under

s. 41 of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10., raises questions of

law and/or jurisdiction concerning the validity, reasonableness, and fairness of
the Canadian Transportation Agency Rules (Dispute Proceedings and Certain
Rules Applicable to All Proceedings), S.O.R./2014-104 (New Rules).

2.

The Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency), established pursuant

to the Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10 (CTA), has a broad mandate in respect of all transportation matters under the legislative authority of
Parliament. One of the Agencys key functions is to resolve commercial and
consumer transportation-related disputed as a quasi-judicial tribunal.

3.

The vast majority of the complainants in consumer disputes before the

Agency are not represented by counsel.

Nawrots v. Sunwing Airlines, 432-C-A-2013, para. 133

2
4.

The Agencys procedural rules serve as a complete code for proceed-

ings before the Agency that self-represented parties can read and use.
Nawrots v. Sunwing Airlines, 432-C-A-2013, para. 134

5.

Since 2005, proceedings before the Agency had been governed by the

Canadian Transportation Agency General Rules, S.O.R./2005-35 (Old Rules).

6.

On May 21, 2014, the New Rules were published in the Canada Gazette.

Section 44 of the New Rules repealed the Old Rules effective June 4, 2014.
New Rules, s. 44

Appeal Book, Tab 2, p. 23

PART II STATEMENT OF THE POINTS IN ISSUE

7.

The issues to be determined on this appeal are:

(a)

whether subsections 41(2)(b), 41(2)(c), and 41(2)(d) of the New Rules

are ultra vires and/or invalid; and

(b)

whether the New Rules are unreasonable and establish inherently unfair
procedures that are inconsistent with the intent of Parliament in establishing the Agency.

3
PART III STATEMENT OF SUBMISSIONS
A.

S UBSECTIONS 41(2)( B )-( D )

AND / OR INVALID

8.

Subsection 41(2) of the New Rules purports to confer on the Agency the

OF THE

N EW R ULES

ARE ULTRA VIRES

power to stay a decision or order that has already been rendered.

(2)

The Agency may, at the request of a party, stay a decision or

order of the Agency in any of the following circumstances:
(a)

a review or re-hearing is being considered by the Agency

under section 32 of the Act;

(b)

a review is being considered by the Governor in Council

under section 40 of the Act;

(c)

an application for leave to appeal is made to the Federal

Court of Appeal under section 41 of the Act;

(d)

the Agency considers it just and reasonable to do so.

New Rules, s. 41(2)

9.

Appeal Book, Tab 2, p. 22

The fundamental constitutional principle of the rule of law dictates that all

powers must find their source in law. Accordingly, administrative bodies, such
as the Agency, can exercise only those powers that were explicitly assigned to
them, and may exercise them only in the form prescribed by law.
Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, paras. 27-30

10.

The New Rules were promulgated pursuant to section 17 of the CTA,

which provides that the Agency may make rules concerning the manner of
and procedures for dealing with matters and business before the Agency.
Canada Transportation Act, s. 17

4
11.

This Honourable Court held that the meaning of the term rule in the

CTA is confined to internal or procedural matters, and does not encompass

external or substantive matters. Thus, the Agency cannot make valid rules for
exercising powers that the Agency does not possess, and the rule-making powers of the Agency pursuant to s. 17 of the CTA cannot be used by the Agency
to confer additional (substantive) powers upon itself, which Parliament did not
confer upon the Agency.
Lukcs v. Canada (Transportation Agency),
2014 FCA 76, paras. 39-41

12.

Therefore, only those provisions of subsection 41(2) of the New Rules

are intra vires and valid which govern the manner and procedure of exercising
powers that Parliament did confer upon the Agency. Hence, the validity of the
provisions of subsection 41(2) of the New Rules depends on whether and in
what circumstances the Agency has jurisdiction to stay its own order or decision
after it has been rendered.

13.

According to the doctrine of functus officio, once decision-makers make

a final decision or order in a matter, they exhaust their authority with respect
to that matter, and the decision or order cannot be reopened and/or varied by
the decision-makers, but only by the appellate jurisdiction. This principle, which
equally applies to administrative tribunals, such as the Agency, is subject to two
exceptions. Final decisions or orders can be varied by decision-makers only if:
(a) authorized by statute; or (b) there was a slip in drawing up the decision or
there was an error in expressing the manifest intention of the tribunal.
Fowlie v. Air Canada, CTA, 488-C-A-2010, para. 28, citing:
Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, [1989] 2 SCR 848

14.

Section 32 of the CTA permits the Agency to reopen and vary its own de-

cisions only in limited circumstances. Consequently, at the heart of the present

issue is a question of statutory interpretation.

5
(i)

The standard of review

15.

The CTA is the Agencys home statute. Thus, the Agencys interpretation

of s. 32 of the CTA is reviewable on a standard of reasonableness.

(ii)

Applicable principles of statutory interpretation

16.

The interpretation of a statutory provision must be made according to a

textual, contextual, and purposive analysis to find a meaning that is harmonious

with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.
Lukcs v. Canada (Transportation Agency),
2014 FCA 76, paras. 22-25

(iii)

Textual and contextual analysis

17.

The CTA contains no provision that would explicitly permit the Agency to

stay its decisions or orders; however, section 32 of the CTA provides that:
32. The Agency may review, rescind or vary any decision or order made
by it or may re-hear any application before deciding it if, in the opinion
of the Agency, since the decision or order or the hearing of the application, there has been a change in the facts or circumstances pertaining to
the decision, order or hearing.
[Emphasis Added.]
Canada Transportation Act, s. 32

18.

The limited nature of this power is underscored by the contrast between

section 32 of the CTA and section 62 of the Telecommunications Act, the enabling statute of the CRTC. While the CTA provides limited powers to review,
rescind, or vary decisions or orders, in the case of the CRTC, Parliament chose
not to restrict or qualify these powers:
62. The Commission may, on application or on its own motion, review
and rescind or vary any decision made by it or re-hear a matter before
rendering a decision.
Telecommunications Act, s. 62

6
19.

The difference in the respective enabling statutes reflects Parliaments

intent to confine the Agencys power to review and vary its own decisions and
orders to very specific situations, namely, where there has been a change in
the facts or circumstances pertaining to a particular decision since its issuance.
Thus, as the Agency correctly acknowledged in Fowlie v. Air Canada, this power
is not open-ended.
Fowlie v. Air Canada, CTA, 488-C-A-2010, para. 27

(iv)

Purposive analysis

20.

The Agency has a dual role: it functions both as a quasi-judicial tribunal

that resolves commercial and consumer transportation-related disputes (including accessibility issues for persons with disabilities) and as an economic regulator that makes determinations and issues licenses and permits.
Lukcs v. Canada (Transportation Agency),
2014 FCA 76, paras. 50-52

21.

The Agency is required to act rapidly. Section 29 of the CTA requires

the Agency to make its decision in any proceeding before it as expeditiously

as possible, but no later than 120 days after the originating documents are received. The Governor in Council may shorten this time frame by regulations, but
neither the Governor in Council nor the Agency itself can extend this statutory
timeline; however, the parties may agree to a longer timeline.
Lukcs v. Canada (Transportation Agency),
2014 FCA 76, para. 53

22.

The purpose of section 32 of the CTA is to allow the Agency to respond

to changes in the circumstances that affect the modes of transportation regulated by the Agency, and flexibly adapt its decisions and orders to new situations
without being fully bound by the doctrine of functus officio. The limited powers
conferred on the Agency by section 32 reflect the intent of Parliament to strike
a balance between the interest in finality of decisions and the need for flexibility
to adapt to new circumstances.

7
(a)

Implied powers

23.

It is reasonable to hold that, in spite of the absence of an explicit leg-

islative provision, Parliament implicitly conferred upon the Agency the power to
stay a decision or order for the purpose and duration of a review or re-hearing
pursuant to section 32 of the CTA, because such powers are necessary for the
Agency to carry out its mandate under section 32. (It is for this reason that the
validity of subsection 41(2)(a) of the New Rules is not being challenged on the
present appeal.)

24.

Such implied powers do not extend beyond the purpose and scope of

section 32 of the CTA, and the Agency may not exercise such implied powers
in the absence of an application to review or vary a decision or order under
section 32.
(b)

Subsection 41(2)(d) of the New Rules

25.

Subsection 41(2)(d) of the New Rules purports to confer open-ended

powers on the Agency to stay its decisions and orders if the Agency considers
it just and reasonable to do so, without any reference to change in the facts or
circumstances pertaining to the decision or order.

26.

The CTA contains no statutory authorization for such open-ended pow-

ers, which would result in delaying the remedy sought by parties, contrary to
the explicit statutory requirement that the Agency must render its decision as
expeditiously as possible, and no later than 120 days after the originating documents are received.

27.

Thus, subsection 41(2)(d) of the New Rules purports to confer upon the

Agency powers that Parliament did not expressly nor implicitly confer upon it.

8
(c)

Subsections 41(2)(b) and 41(2)(c) of the New Rules

28.

Subsections 41(2)(b)-(c) of the New Rules purport to allow the Agency

to stay its decisions and orders pending an appeal to the Governor in Council
or a motion for leave to appeal to this Court.

29.

Does an appeal to the Governor in Council or a motion for leave to ap-

peal to this Court constitute change in the facts or circumstances within the
meaning of section 32 of the CTA? Answering this question in the affirmative
leads to the absurd conclusion that the Agency may rescind or vary its decision or order every time it is being appealed, and thus may augment or alter
its reasons in light of the grounds of appeal. This would turn each decision and
order into a moving target and would make review by this Honourable Court or
the Governor in Council impossible. Since Parliament did intend to subject the
Agencys decisions and orders to review by the Governor in Council and this
Court, such an excessively broad interpretation of section 32 must be rejected.

30.

Therefore, appeals do not constitute change in the facts or circum-

stances within the meaning of section 32 of the CTA, and section 32 does
not authorize the Agency to stay its decisions and orders in such cases.

31.

Both this Honourable Court and the Governor in Council have jurisdiction

to stay decisions and orders that are being appealed to them (or when leave
to appeal is sought). Thus, concurrent powers to stay decisions and orders in
such cases are not necessary for the Agency to carry out its mandate under
the CTA. Consequently, the Agency has no implied powers of this nature.
Association des Compagnies de Tlphone du Qubec Inc. v.
Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FCA 203, paras. 18-19, 30-33

32.

Hence, subsections 41(2)(b)-(c) of the New Rules purport to confer upon

the Agency powers that Parliament did not expressly nor implicitly confer on it.

9
B.

T HE N EW R ULES

ARE UNREASONABLE AND ESTABLISH INHERENTLY

UNFAIR PROCEDURES THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF

PARLIAMENT
33.

Although the Agency is the master of its own procedures, the Agency

must establish procedures that are fair, reasonable, and consistent with the
principles of natural justice and the purpose for which Parliament established
the Agency as a quasi-judicial tribunal.
The first, and most important, point to be made is that it is not written
within the purview of a tribunal bound by the requirements of procedural
fairness to dispense with those requirements because, in its view the
result of the hearing will be the same.
Ayele v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2007 FC 126,
para. 9

34.

In the present case, it is submitted that the New Rules fail to meet the

aforementioned requirements, because:

(a)

parties have no opportunity to object to requests of non-parties

to intervene;

(b)

the requirement to provide reasons, which existed in the Old

Rules, has been abolished; and

(c)

the New Rules establish a paper-only proceeding, and provide for

no meaningful opportunity to challenge the statements of adverse
witnesses or for calling witnesses to testify orally.

35.

Bearing in mind the nature of disputes and parties before the Agency,

these shortcomings create a proceeding that is inherently unfair to parties in

general, and to complainants in particular, and make it virtually impossible for
complainants to prove their version of the events if the facts are disputed.

10
(i)

The standard of review

36.

The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that compliance with the duty

of procedural fairness is reviewed on the standard of correctness even in cases

where the substance of a decision is subject to a deferential standard of review:
Third, the ability to challenge a decision on the basis that it is unreasonable does not necessarily change the standard of review that applies to other flaws in the decision or in the decision-making process.
For instance, the standard for determining whether the decision maker
complied with the duty of procedural fairness will continue to be
correctness.
[Emphasis added.]
Mission Institution v. Khela, 2014 SCC 24, para. 79

37.

Thus, it is submitted that the question of whether the New Rules estab-

lish fair procedures is to be reviewed on a standard of correctness. It is further

submitted that for the reasons set out below, the New Rules cannot be maintained even under a more deferential standard of reasonableness.
(ii)

Complete code for unrepresented complainants

38.

One of the Agencys key functions is to resolve commercial and con-

sumer transportation-related disputes, including accessibility issues for persons

with disabilities.
Lukcs v. Canada (Transportation Agency),
2014 FCA 76, para. 51

39.

The Agencys procedural rules serve as a complete code for proceed-

ings before the Agency that parties can read and use. The vast majority of
consumer complaints are made by unrepresented complainants, who have no
prior experience or training in law, and thus neither expect nor know that they
may have rights beyond what is in the rules. Hence, the vast majority of complainants cannot assert or exercise procedural rights not set out in the rules.
Nawrots v. Sunwing Airlines, 432-C-A-2013, paras. 133-134

11
(iii)

No opportunity to object to requests of non-parties to intervene

40.

Section 29 of the New Rules governs requests of non-parties for leave

to intervene in a proceeding. While subsection 29(1) describes the procedure

for making a request to intervene, there are no provisions in section 29 that
speak about parties responding to the request to intervene. In other words,
according to section 29, the Agency will rule on requests to intervene without
receiving submissions from the parties to the proceeding on the question of
whether leave to intervene should be granted.

41.

New Rules, s. 29

Appeal Book, Tab 2, p. 17

Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement

Appeal Book, Tab 2, p. 37

Granting intervener status to non-parties affects the substantive rights

and access to justice of parties in general, and unrepresented parties with

limited resources in particular, because it complicates the proceeding, and increases the demand on parties resources.

42.

While in the case of sophisticated litigants with deep pockets the im-

pact of adding interveners may be minor, in the case of unrepresented parties

with limited resources, interveners can create a prohibitive burden that forces
vulnerable parties to give up and not pursue their rights.

43.

Therefore, it is submitted that parties to a proceeding are entitled, as

a matter of procedural fairness, to lead evidence and make submissions in

opposition to requests of non-parties to intervene.

44.

Hence, section 29 of the New Rules is unreasonable and inherently un-

fair in the absence of a provision that provides parties with a reasonable opportunity to respond and object to requests to intervene.

12
(iv)

Abolishment of the requirement to provide reasons

45.

Section 36 of the Old Rules provides that:

36. The Agency shall give oral or written reasons in support of any of
its orders and decisions that do not allow the relief requested, or if opposition has been expressed.
Old Rules, s. 36

46.

The New Rules, however, contain no such or similar provision that would

require the Agency to provide reasons for its orders and decisions. The omission indicates and/or creates the impression that the Agency is no longer bound
by the duty to provide reasons.

47.

The duty to give reasons is a salutary one, and it is measured against

the functions for which the duty to provide them was imposed. Reasons serve
a number of purposes:
(a)

focus the decision-maker on the relevant factors and evidence;

(b)

provide the parties with the assurance that their representations

have been considered;

(c)

provide a basis for an assessment of possible grounds for appeal;

and

(d)

allow the appellate court to determine whether the decisionmaker erred and thereby render him or her accountable.

Vancouver International Airport Authority v. Public Service

Alliance of Canada, 2010 FCA 158, paras. 13-14

48.

Parliament envisioned the Agency as a tribunal that provides reasons for

its decisions and orders. By enacting subsection 41(1) of the CTA, Parliament

13
chose to subject decisions, orders, rules, and regulations of the Agency to the
appellate review of this Honourable Court. In judicial review of decisions and orders, the justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making
process and its reasons are of primary concern. The absence of reasons would
frustrate the ability of this Honourable Court to carry out its mandate pursuant
to section 41 of the CTA.
Canada Transportation Act, s. 41(1)
Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, para. 47

49.

In addition to the legal duty to provide reasons, one should be mindful of

that the rules serve as a complete procedural code for proceedings before the
Agency that the Agency expects self-represented parties to read and use. The
omission of the duty to provide reasons from the New Rules is also unreasonable, because it deprives unrepresented parties of knowledge about their most
basic procedural rights before the Agency.
Nawrots v. Sunwing Airlines, 432-C-A-2013, para. 134

(v)

Paper proceeding with no meaningful opportunity to challenge

statements of adverse witnesses or to call oral evidence

50.

The New Rules contain no provisions concerning out-of-hearing exami-

nation of deponents and affiants (such as section 34 of the Old Rules) nor rules
governing the conduct of oral hearings (see sections 48-67 of the Old Rules).
Old Rules, ss. 34, 48-67

51.

The New Rules establish a paper-only proceeding:

(a)

Pursuant to Rule 18(1), an application (complaint) must include

any legislative provisions, a clear statement of the issues, a full
description of the facts, the relief claimed, the arguments in support of the application, and a copy of each document submitted
in support of the application.

14
(b)

Pursuant to Rule 19, an answer to an application must include a

statement that sets out the elements that the respondent agrees
with or disagrees with in the application, a full description of the
facts, the arguments in support of the answer, and a copy of each
document supporting the answer.

(c)

Rule 20(1) provides the applicant (complainant) with a right of

submitting a written reply to the answer; however, Rule 20(2) prohibits not only raising new issues on reply, but also introducing
new evidence, unless the Agency granted permission to do so.

(d)

Rule 24 provides that parties may direct written questions to each

other and may seek production of documents.

New Rules, ss. 18-20 and 24

52.

Appeal Book, Tab 2, pp. 13-14

The New Rules contain no procedures for cross-examination of depo-

nents or affiants whose written statements were submitted to the Agency as

evidence, nor procedures for calling witnesses to provide oral evidence. Thus,
the New Rules codify the Agencys view and practice to decide consumer disputes based only on written statements, without hearing any oral evidence or
at the very least having the benefit of transcripts of cross-examinations.
Azar v. Air Canada, LET-C-A-180-2012, p. 28

53.

It is submitted that the absence of procedures for cross-examination of a

person whose statement has been tendered as evidence to the Agency and for
calling witnesses to provide oral testimony is contrary to the intent of Parliament
in establishing the Agency, degrades the Agencys fact-finding process to a
storytelling contest, deprives parties of a meaningful opportunity to respond to
the case against them, and renders the Agencys proceedings inherently unfair
to parties in general, and to complainants in particular.

15
(a)

Procedural fairness and cross-examination

54.

Cross-examination is fundamental to the truth seeking function of courts,

and has been found to be no less important in the context of administrative

law and tribunals that perform a quasi-judicial function to adjudicate individual claims or inter partes disputes; in these cases, it was held that procedural
fairness requires that parties be afforded the right to cross-examine.
Rezmuves v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 973,
para. 29

55.

In Norway House Indian Band v. Canada, the Federal Court set aside a

labour arbitration award (in spite of a very strong privative clause) and held that
the proceeding was patently unreasonable because of the lack of opportunity
to cross-examine:
The opportunity to cross-examine is the paramount aspect of the right
to confront ones adversary, and is of the essence to fair proceedings.
Norway House Indian Band v. Canada (Adjudicator, Labour Code)
(T.D.), [1994] 3 F.C. 376, para. 60

56.

The right to cross-examine in proceedings before tribunals was analyzed

by the Supreme Court of Canada in Innisfil (Township) v. Vespra (Township):

It is within the context of a statutory process that it must be noted that
cross-examination is a vital element of the adversarial system applied
and followed in our legal system, including, in many instances, before
administrative tribunals since the earliest times. Indeed the adversarial
system, founded on cross-examination and the right to meet the case
being made against the litigant, civil or criminal, is the procedural substructure upon which the common law itself has been built.
The Court went on to cite from Wigmore on Evidence:
For two centuries past, the policy of the Anglo-American system of evidence has been to regard the necessity of testing by cross-examination
as a vital feature of the law. The belief that no safeguard for testing the

16
value of human statements is comparable to that furnished by crossexamination, and the conviction that no statement (unless by special
exception) should be used as testimony until it has been probed and
sublimated by that test, has found increasing strength in lengthening experience.
Not even the abuses, the mishandlings, and the puerilities which are so
often found associated with cross-examination have availed to nullify
its value. It may be that in more than one sense it takes the place in
our system which torture occupied in the mediaeval system of the civilians. Nevertheless, it is beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever
invented for the discovery of truth.
Then the Court concluded that:
The procedural format adopted by the administrative tribunal must adhere to the provisions of the parent statute of the Board. [...] Where the
Board proceeds in the discharge of its mandate to determine the rights
of the contending parties before it on the traditional basis wherein the
onus falls upon the contender to introduce the facts and submissions
upon which he will rely, the Board technique will take on something of
the appearance of a traditional court.
Innisfil (Township) v. Vespra (Township),
[1981] 2 S.C.R. 145, pp. 17-18

57.

Therefore, in adversarial proceedings of a quasi-judicial nature, involv-

ing determination of the rights of contending parties based on their evidence,

parties must be afforded the right to cross-examine.
(b)

The statutory scheme

58.

One of the Agencys key functions is to resolve consumer transportation-

related disputes, including accessibility issues for persons with disabilities.

When the Agency adjudicates such complaints, it determines the rights and
obligations of the parties in much the same way that a court or a small claims
court would do.

17
59.

An electronic search of the CTA discloses that uses of the words hear

and hearing include:

(a)

the Chairperson may authorize the member to continue to hear

any matter (s. 8(3));

(b)

Where a member who is conducting a hearing in respect of a

matter... (ss. 16(2) and 16(3));

(c)

which hearings may be held in private and number of members

that are required to hear any matter (s. 17(b) and 17(c));

(d)

an adjourned hearing of the matter (s. 28(2));

(e)

jurisdiction to hear and determine the same question (s. 30);

(f)

re-hear any application and hearing of the application (s. 32);

and

(g)

The Agency may inquire into, hear and determine a complaint

(s. 37).

Thus, Parliament intended the Agency to conduct hearings.

Canada Transportation Act, ss. 8(3), 16, 17, 28, 30, 32, and 37

60.

Parliament also envisioned the Agency receiving evidence in the same

manner as a superior court in the course of carrying out its mandate:

25. The Agency has, with respect to all matters necessary or proper
for the exercise of its jurisdiction, the attendance and examination of
witnesses, the production and inspection of documents, the enforcement
of its orders or regulations and the entry on and inspection of property,
all the powers, rights and privileges that are vested in a superior court.
[Emphasis added.]
Canada Transportation Act, s. 25

18
61.

Sections 30 and 31 of the CTA reflect the legislative intent to make fact-

finding and discovery of the truth an essential part of the Agencys mandate:
30. The fact that a suit, prosecution or proceeding involving a question
of fact is pending in any court does not deprive the Agency of jurisdiction to hear and determine the same question of fact.
31. The finding or determination of the Agency on a question of fact
within its jurisdiction is binding and conclusive.
Canada Transportation Act, ss. 30-31

62.

Section 25.1 of the CTA, permitting the Agency to award costs in the

same manner as the Federal Court, lends further support to the conclusion
that Parliament intended the Agency to adjudicate disputes before it in a judicial
manner, as a court or a small claims court would do.
Canada Transportation Act, s. 25.1

(c)

Nature of transportation-related consumer disputes

63.

Most consumer disputes within the jurisdiction of the Agency fall into one

of the following three categories:

(1)

policy complaints, alleging that a carriers policies are unreasonable, unclear, or fail to accommodate passengers with disabilities;

(2)

monetary claims for expenses incurred as a result of a carrier

failing to follow the terms and conditions set out in its tariff; and

(3)

refusal to transport (including lifetime ban), involving allegations

of unruly behaviour of passengers.

64.

Disputes belonging to the last two categories tend to be fact-driven, and

involve substantial factual disputes about events involving the passenger and
the carriers employees or agents.

19
65.

Due to the nature of travel, the only witnesses to most incidents who are

available to the parties are the passengers themselves and the carriers employees. Carriers typically submit reports, statements, or declarations of their
employees in response to complaints to the Agency. The employees version of
the events often differs from the recollection of the complainant, and involves
allegations of improper behaviour of the complainant.
Lukacs v. United Airlines Inc., et al., 2009 MBQB 29, para. 17
Boutin v. Air Canada, 444-C-A-2012, para. 41
Forsythe v. Air Canada, 260-C-A-2014, para. 23
K. v. Air Canada, 383-C-A-2008, paras. 19-23

66.

Thus, a substantial portion of transportation-related consumer disputes

require the decision-maker to decide whom they believe: the carriers employees or the complainant. It is impossible to determine questions of this nature in
a fair and reasonable manner without affording parties a meaningful opportunity
to test the evidence of their adversaries.

67.

There is no doubt that a skilled counsel can draft what the Agency called

in Boutin consistent and persuasive written statements; furthermore, there

is no doubt that a carriers employees have a significant incentive to agree
with the content of such consistent and persuasive written statements drafted
by counsel and to remember the events accordingly, provided that they are
shielded from cross-examination. (Indeed, employees who are found to have
acted improperly or to have assisted their co-workers in doing so may be facing
discipline, including termination.) The duty of the Agency, however, is not to
test the drafting skills of the carriers counsel, but rather to discover the truth. In
other words, the Agencys mandate is to determine what did happen between
the parties involved, and not what the parties wish to have happened.
Boutin v. Air Canada, 444-C-A-2012, para. 41

20
68.

Parliament did not intend parties before the Agency to be afforded less

procedural fairness than they would be entitled before a small claims court
adjudicating the same issue. Holding to the contrary would discourage passengers from using the Agencys complaint procedures, and thus would defeat the
purpose for which Parliament created the Agency.

69.

The procedures of small claims courts are established so as to enable

unrepresented parties, with no or very limited legal knowledge, to gain access

to justice. In spite of the informal, expeditious, and cost-efficient nature of small
claims proceedings, contested claims are nevertheless adjudicated at an oral
hearing, where witnesses can be cross-examined by the opposing party. The
reason for this practice is found in the role of cross-examination in the factfinding process, which was noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Innisfil.

70.

It is submitted that the same principles are applicable to consumer dis-

putes before the Agency: decision-makers faced with conflicting evidence of

the parties must decide whom they believe. It is impossible to make such decisions in a fair and reasonable way without allowing parties to cross-examine
adverse witnesses, and having the decision-makers observe the witnesses as
they testify.
(d)

Conclusion

71.

The Agency is required to discover the truth in the course of carrying

out its mandate as an adjudicator of transportation-related consumer disputes.

Parliament intended that in discharging this function, which involves determination of the rights and obligations of the parties, the Agency receive evidence in
the same manner as courts do, or at the very least as small claims courts do.

21
72.

Due to the nature of consumer disputes, the parties evidence about

what happened is often conflicting. Cross-examination of witnesses in such

circumstances is the only available means for parties to meet the case being
made against them. Therefore, procedural fairness requires that parties to dispute proceedings before the Agency be afforded the right to cross-examine
witnesses, including deponents of adverse written statements, if the facts are
contested.

73.

The absence of procedures for challenging and testing the evidence of

adverse witnesses at an oral hearing or at an examination whose transcript is

submitted to the Agency renders the New Rules unfit for the discovery of the
truth and creates an inherently unfair proceeding. This state of affairs is inconsistent with the legislative intent manifested in section 25 of the CTA, degrades
the proceeding into a storytelling contest, and defeats the purpose for which
the Agency was created.

74.

Since the New Rules make it virtually impossible for complainants to

prove their version of the events if the facts are disputed, the New Rules are
particularly prejudicial and inherently unfair to complainants, who bear the burden of proof in most cases.

22
C.

C OSTS

75.

Lukcs is respectfully asking this Honourable Court that he be awarded

his disbursements in any event of the cause, and if successful, also a modest
allowance for his time, for the following reasons.

76.

In Lukcs v. Canada (Transportation Agency), this Honourable Court

awarded the appellant disbursements even though the appeal was dismissed:
In the circumstances where the appeal was in the nature of public interest litigation and the issue raised by the appellant was not frivolous, I
would award the appellant his disbursements in this Court.
Lukcs v. Canada (Transportation Agency),
2014 FCA 76, para. 62

77.

It is submitted that the same holds in the present case: the issues raised

are not frivolous (demonstrated by the fact that the motion for leave to appeal
was unopposed and was granted by this Honourable Court), and the appeal is
in the nature of public interest litigation.

23
PART IV ORDER SOUGHT

78.

The Appellant, Dr. Gbor Lukcs, is seeking an Order:

(a)

quashing sections 41(2)(b), 41(2)(c), and 41(2)(d) of the New Rules and
declaring these provisions to be ultra vires the powers of the Agency
and/or invalid and/or of no force or effect;

(b)

declaring that the New Rules are invalid because they are unreasonable
and establish inherently unfair procedures that are inconsistent with the
intent of Parliament in establishing the Agency;

(c)

referring the New Rules back to the Agency with directions to revise
them within 60 days by establishing rules that:
i.

provide parties a reasonable opportunity to respond and object to

requests of non-parties to intervene;

ii.

require the Agency to provide reasons in support of any of its

orders and decisions that do not allow the relief requested, or if
opposition has been expressed; and

iii.

govern examinations of deponents and affiants, oral hearings,

and in particular, requests for oral hearings.

(d)

directing the Respondents to pay Dr. Lukcs disbursements of the appeal and a moderate allowance for the time and effort Lukcs devoted
to the present appeal; and

(e)

granting such further relief as this Honourable Court may deem just.

24
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

January 6, 2015
DR. GBOR LUKCS
Halifax, NS
[email protected]
Appellant

25
PART V LIST OF AUTHORITIES

S TATUTES

AND

R EGULATIONS

Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10,

ss. 8, 16, 17, 25, 28-32, 37, 40, 41
Canadian Transportation Agency General Rules, S.O.R./2005-35
ss. 34, 36, and Part 3
Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38,
s. 62

C ASE L AW
Association des Compagnies de Tlphone du Qubec Inc. v.
Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FCA 203
Ayele v. Canada, 2007 FC 126
Azar v. Air Canada, Canadian Transportation Agency,
Decision No. LET-C-A-180-2012
Boutin v. Air Canada, Canadian Transportation Agency,
Decision No. 444-C-A-2012
Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9
Forsythe v. Air Canada, Canadian Transportation Agency,
Decision No. 260-C-A-2014
Fowlie v. Air Canada, Canadian Transportation Agency,
Decision No. 488-C-A-2010
Innisfil (Township) v. Vespra (Township), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 145
K. v. Air Canada, Canadian Transportation Agency,
Decision No. 383-C-A-2008
Lukcs v. Canada (Transportation Agency), 2014 FCA 76

26
C ASE L AW ( CONTINUED )
Lukacs v. United Airlines Inc., et al., 2009 MBQB 29
Mission Institution v. Khela, 2014 SCC 24
Nawrots v. Sunwing Airlines, Canadian Transportation Agency,
Decision No. 432-C-A-2013
Norway House Indian Band v. Canada (Adjudicator, Labour
Code) (T.D.), [1994] 3 F.C. 376
Rezmuves v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2013 FC 973
Vancouver International Airport Authority v. Public Service
Alliance of Canada, 2010 FCA 158