Airport off the hook for navigation equipment expense

[CD]

Airport authority off the hook for navigation equipment expense

Published Friday April 4th, 2008
Appeared on page A4

The Greater Fredericton Airport Authority doesn't have to pay for an expensive piece of equipment that a federal aviation organization forced it to buy after its runway extension.

Nav Canada, the federal body that oversees aviation services nationwide, took the local airport authority to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal last fall.

It had required the airport about five years ago to pay for a new navigational aid at a cost of $223,000 after the airport authority's decision to extend its runway.

The airport felt it shouldn't be required to pay for a new aid but wrote in a letter to Nav Canada it would pay because it wouldn't let it operate the airport without it.

A Court of Queen's Bench judge ruled the airport authority wasn't contractually bound to pay for the navigational aid, which meant Nav Canada had to foot the bill.

Nav Canada appealed that decision, but the appeals court sided with the airport authority as well.

Originally, an arbitrator had ruled the airport authority was on the hook for the equipment because of the letter it wrote, noting it would pay the bill "under protest."

The authority successfully appealed that decision in the Court of Queen's Bench, leading to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal case.

Justice Joseph Robertson, writing the Court of Appeal decision on behalf of the tribunal of judges, agreed the arbitrator was out of line.

"Like the appeal judge, I respectfully conclude that the arbitrator erred in holding that the subsequent correspondence qualifies as an enforceable contract, " he wrote.

He wrote that Nav Canada's actions and decisions may be the result of institutional bullying.

"... It may well be that Nav Canada truly believed that it had no contractual obligation to pay for the cost of the navigational aid and as such was acting in good faith," he wrote.

"But it is equally plausible, as claimed by the airport authority, that Nav Canada was simply attempting to off-load its responsibility to purchase navigational equipment onto an unwilling and unrelenting 'victim.' "

The tribunal dismissed Nav Canada's appeal in a ruling earlier this month and awarded costs of $6,600 to the airport authority.

David Innes, president and CEO of the airport authority, said it incurred high legal costs during the process.

It's seeking a legal remedy to get those costs back from Nav Canada, he said.

The Court of Appeal decision is important, not only to the Fredericton airport, but to other smaller airport authorities.

"I think that it tells Nav Canada to play by the rules," he said.

He said he hopes Nav Canada won't pursue a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and given the clear nature of the appeal decision, he doesn't expect one.

The Daily Gleaner

[kevenv]

I believe the problem was, the airport authority decided to lengthen runway 09/27 and for some reason the ILS on 15 was removed and a new one installed on runway 09. I think NavCanada was saying the airport authority extended the runway and wanted an ILS installed on it thus they should pay for it. Contrary to the newspaper story, the company is not a federal body nor can it tell Fredericton that they cannot operate their airport without a new ILS.

[grimey]

Contrary to the newspaper story, the company is not a federal body nor can it tell Fredericton that they cannot operate their airport without a new ILS.

The reporter may have been told that not having an ILS would cause the airport to basically shut down due to weather on some days, and got confused about what that meant.

/just guessing...

[kevenv]

A reporter confused? No way!

[grimey]

[Alex YCV]

I am thinking that the question of who ordered the changes the the airport. If NavCanada said "we need this airport to have a longer runway and a new ILS" then they should be on the hook for it. If the airport wants to expand of their own accord, then they would be on the hook.

If NavCan hadn't asked for a longer runway or better services, would this have come up?

[lilfssister]

If NavCan hadn't asked for a longer runway or better services...

Where does it say NC asked for a longer runway? I am pretty sure that was a decision the airport authority would make, as it says in the article.

[GilletteNorth]

From the news report:

Nav Canada, the federal body that oversees aviation services nationwide

Gotta love how reporters do not check the facts of their story. How many times does it need to be said, Nav Canada is NOT a federal government department? It is a not-for-profit private corporation, granted a truely unique one, but there you go.

I don't see why Nav Canada didn't want to pay for the re-installation of the new ILS after the runway upgrade. It would recover the cost from the fees charged to the airlines anyway. Oh yeah, it keeps returning 'overpayments' to Air Canada. Guess that's why they were short on some spare change.

[Alex YCV]

If NavCan hadn't asked for a longer runway or better services...

Where does it say NC asked for a longer runway? I am pretty sure that was a decision the airport authority would make, as it says in the article.

In this case the authority did the extension, so they really should have been on the hook for any additional expenses that came as a result.

However, it isn't clear what services were offered before, and what would be offered after. Was NavCan asking them to increase or offer more service (adding an ILS where the was none before, example). After all, if there was one there before, could it not be relocated and re-calibrated?

[KAFUFO]

Whoo now those costs can be spread throught the entire country with increaced nav canada fees rather than with inceaced AIF, either way does it matter who gets the tax write off the consumer is going to be the one who pay's for it

[grimey]

Whoo now those costs can be spread throught the entire country with increaced nav canada fees rather than with inceaced AIF, either way does it matter who gets the tax write off the consumer is going to be the one who pay's for it

Are you saying that's a bad thing?

[KAFUFO]

Do you have any concept of how a tax write-off works?

yep

[GilletteNorth]

Replace Federal with National and I'll feel better

[Alex YCV]

Several have mentioned the "federal body" part of the quote.

While NC is not government, it is a federal entity in terms of reach/scope. It was created by an act of Parliament at the federal level, it is regulated by Transport Canada under federal transport laws, and its employees are subject to federal labour laws.

It is government? No.

But is it "federal" in the sense of scope? Yes. (it is certainly not provincial or municipal in scope)

"federally mandated sole responsible for"

"The federal body with the unique responsiblity for"

"the borg"

Different name for the same thing, no?