TATC File No. P-2845-37
MoT File No. EMS 048407



Minister of Transport, Applicant

- and -

International Express Air Charters Ltd. (c/o/b Regency Express Flight Operations), Respondent

Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2, s. 7.7
Canadian Aviation Regulations, SOR/96-433, s. 605.06 et 703.19

Review Determination
William D. Nicholson

Decision: November 9, 2004

The Minister has proven all elements of the offences and the assessments of $15,000.00 against International Express Air Charters Ltd. stand. This amount, payable to the Receiver General for Canada, must be received by the Tribunal within fifteen days of service of this determination.

A review hearing was held on the above matters on June 28 and 29, 2004 commencing at 10:00 hours and conducted at the Federal Court of Canada, in Vancouver, British Columbia.


There were two Notices of Assessment of Monetary Penalty dealt with at this hearing. The first Notice alleged that Rajnita Sandhu contravened two counts each of paragraph 605.10(1)(a) and subsection 605.94(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs), pursuant to section 7.7 of the Aeronautics Act. The total assessed monetary penalty for these alleged contraventions was $700.00 (TATC File No. P-2844-33).

The second Notice alleged that International Express contravened two counts each of sections 605.06 and 703.19, pursuant to section 7.7 of the Aeronautics Act, carrying a total assessed penalty of $15,000.00 (TATC File No. P-2845-37).

These contraventions arose from ramp inspections conducted by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Inspector Harold Hutchins in Bellingham, Washington and MoT Inspector Patrick Davies in Vancouver, British Columbia.


It was argued that George Tingle, a witness for the Respondents, should be allowed to assist counsel for the Respondents on technical matters. As there were no objections from the Applicant Mr. Tingle was allowed to observe the complete hearing.

The Minister's motion was granted to drop two counts of paragraph 605.10(1)(a) of the CARs against Ms. Sandhu, thus reducing the monetary penalty to $200.00.

The Minister's motion to change the wording in the charge under section 605.06 of the CARs against International Express was also granted, reducing the elements in the charge.

A spelling mistake on the Notice of Assessment of Monetary Penalty to Ms. Sandhu was corrected.


The Minister called witness Inspector Terry Van Gelderen, Civil Aviation Safety inspector, Richmond. Through this witness the photocopied journey log book for aircraft C-FDEB (Exhibit M-1) was introduced.

The Minister called its second witness, Inspector Stephen Bailey, Civil Aviation Inspector – Enforcement. Mr. Bailey gave evidence as to how the charges were determined and laid. He also identified the tower record (M-3) to explain the time records in the log book (M-1) and to correlate the time entered in Inspector Davey's notes.

Material data evidence was introduced as type certificate data (M-5) and A.R.B. (Air Registration Board) Approved Flight Manual (M-6). This showed aircraft C-FDEB to be a Britten-Norman Model B. 2 Alpha Islander with a "required equipment" list including an airspeed indicator.

Mr. Bailey furnished the regulatory flow chart for CARs 703.19 (M-7) as to how the charges were developed.

Photocopied excerpts of the Regency Express Flight Operations Maintenance Control Manual (M-8) were introduced and explained that this gave direction to their pilots as to how and when entries should be made, to their engineers as to how the company maintains its aircraft. Regulatory flow chart of CARs 605.94(1) (M-9) further defined who was responsible for making entries and when this should occur.

Under cross-examination Mr. Bailey acknowledged that he had no direct knowledge of the events of May 14, 2002.

The third witness called by the Minister was FAA Inspector Harold Hutchins, Agency Inspector and International Safety Inspector. Mr. Hutchins identified the pilot-in-command on May 14, 2002 as Ms. Sandhu sitting in the courtroom.

Testimony given by Mr. Hutchins showed that both the pilot-in-command (Rajnita Sandhu) and second-in-command (Nicholas Hill) were informed, "that in the United States the Regulations are clear that the airspeed indicator is required and that the airspeed indicator reading 22 knots was not what should be happening." He also gave testimony that he spoke to Ranjit Gill, President of International Express, with the use of the pilot-in-command's cell phone and advised him that the wind was not 22 knots and "the airspeed indicator was showing incorrectly."

The airspeed indicator's actual appearance was given significant time. Mr. Hutchins' testimony described the airspeed indicator as, "the number 20 was the first number..., a large mark that showed what would mean 10 knots. Then there were individual marks between those two marks. ... it was two notches past the 20." When questioned if the Respondents' airspeed indicator (R-1) was the same as he saw installed in the aircraft, he testified, "it's not the same type of airspeed indicator. Markings aren't the same."

Under some rather aggressive cross-examination Mr. Hutchins gave evidence that there had been discussions from his FAA officer with Regency Express as to their acquiring a MEL (minimum equipment list) for each Islander aircraft. He stated, "If you don't have an MEL, everything must work."

Mr. Hutchins explained that as an inspector he does not have the power to ground aircraft, only to advise of anomalies and allow the pilot and/or the company to take appropriate action.

Exhibit R-2 (page of Overhaul Manual) was shown to Mr. Hutchins who stated none of the depicted airspeed indicators were the same as the one installed.

The last witness called by the Minister was Inspector Patrick Davey. In his testimony he stated that his office was informed that a ramp check by the FAA in Bellingham had uncovered some discrepancies and he went to meet the aircraft. Mr. Davey checked the logbook and was informed that there were no defects on the aircraft and no log entries made. He proceeded to inspect the aircraft in particular the airspeed indicator which he noted was, "reading approximately 22 knots." He did add that it was very windy at the time. He had the copilot cover the pitot tube with his finger and observed no change in the airspeed indicator. At this point the captain agreed that the airspeed was defective.

When asked how he knew it was 22 knots, he stated, "I observed it with my eyes. I verified it with the captain and copilot."

Mr. Davey was shown the airspeed indicator (R-1) and stated it was not similar to the installed airspeed indicator. He indicated the installed airspeed indicator had a mark for 10 and the first number was 20.

Exhibit R-2, a page of the Overhaul Manual, was shown and Mr. Davey stated, "It's certainly not one of these instruments that were in there."

The first witness called by the Respondents was Ranjit Gill, owner and operations manager, International Express. He gave evidence as to the frequency of ramp inspections in Bellingham and how it may have been connected to a MEL issue.

Evidence was offered by Mr. R. Gill that his company had an arrangement with a Mr. Marley of Alpha Aviation to do spot maintenance in Bellingham. International Express also had an aircraft in Victoria that could be used in place of an unserviceable aircraft.

Under cross-examination Mr. R. Gill agreed that suspected defects should be entered into the journey log book, but did not agree that the airspeed indicator was defective.

Ms. Rajnita Sandhu, the captain, was called as the Respondents' second witness. She gave evidence as to the company's standard operating procedures (SOP). These checks included before start, after start, taxiing, and initial take-off roll.

Ms. Sandhu's recollection of the installed airspeed indicator and in reference to Exhibit R-1 airspeed indicator was that "it's very similar." "No markings until 40." The indicator was a "tad off zero."

She indicated that Inspector Davey had told her what to enter in the log book with reference to the airspeed indicator.

Under cross-examination Ms. Sandhu read a section of Regency Express Maintenance Control Manual (M-8), "All defects occurring shall be entered into the journey log as required by CAR 605.94 Schedule 1, ... but in any case prior to the next flight." When asked if all defects include suspected and known defects, she answered, "Yes."

The Hearing Officer asked questions regarding checks that may have been in accordance with Regency Express' SOPs that would have been done while on the take-off roll, backtracking or taxiing downwind.

The third and final witness for the Respondents was George Tingle, Director of Maintenance, Regency Express. Testimony was given as to his involvement in the Bellingham inspection. He described the airspeed anomaly as a wind induced factor. Mr. Tingle testified that he resolved the fuel pressure gauge question with a description of how the system works.

Mr. Tingle became involved with the Vancouver inspection after receiving a phone call from the captain advising him that Transport Canada had stopped them and was conducting an inspection. Points made in regard to the Vancouver inspection include that although placing a finger over the pitot tube was not a valid maintenance test the airspeed indicator should have read zero. He agreed that this discrepancy should have been written in the log book.

The airspeed indicator description was stated as, "similar to this one," referring to (R-1) airspeed indicator.


The Canadian Aviation Regulations:

Aircraft Equipment Standards and Serviceability

605.06 No person shall conduct a take-off in an aircraft, or permit another person to conduct a take-off in an aircraft in their custody and control, unless the aircraft equipment required by these Regulations

(a) meets the applicable standards of airworthiness; and

(b) is serviceable and, where required by operational circumstances, functioning, except if otherwise provided in section 605.08, 605.09 or 605.10.

Maintenance of Aircraft

703.19 No air operator shall permit a person to conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has not been maintained in accordance with the air operator's maintenance control system.

Unserviceable and Removed Equipment — Aircraft without a
Minimum Equipment List

605.10 (1) Where a minimum equipment list has not been approved in respect of the operator of an aircraft, no person shall conduct a take-off in the aircraft with equipment that is not serviceable or that has been removed, where that equipment is required by

(a) the standards of airworthiness that apply to day or night VFR or IFR flight, as applicable;

(b) any equipment list published by the aircraft manufacturer respecting aircraft equipment that is required for the intended flight;

(c) an air operator certificate, a private operator certificate, a special flight operations certificate or a flight training unit operating certificate;

(d) an airworthiness directive; or

(e) these Regulations.

Journey Log Requirements

605.94 (1) The particulars set out in column I of an item in Schedule I to this Division shall be recorded in the journey log at the time set out in column II of the item and by the person responsible for making entries set out in column III of that item.

The Aeronautics Act:

8.4 (1) The registered owner of an aircraft may be proceeded against in respect of and found to have committed an offence under this Part in relation to the aircraft for which another person is subject to be proceeded against unless, at the time of the offence, the aircraft was in the possession of a person other than the owner without the owner's consent and, where found to have committed the offence, the owner is liable to the penalty provided as punishment therefor.


During the hearing we had numerous areas of conflicting testimony. These discrepancies included the indication on the airspeed indicator, the depiction of the airspeed indicator as Exhibit R-2, who attended and when at the inspections in question, parts in stock, and areas of the airspeed that had no consequences. It may be due to time having clouded memories or the desire to give various slants to the testimony. It is my responsibility to weigh each side of these conflicts.

The Respondents describe the airspeed indicator as "tad off zero," and "needle over to the right." The Applicant's witnesses had reviewed their written notes from the time and describe the airspeed indicator as, "the one that was in the aeroplane had 20 knots and was reading 22 knots on the ground." I tend to favour memory reinforced by timely notes.

Defence counsel strongly suggests that Exhibit R-2 (drawing of airspeed indicator) was an accurate depiction and only face on the instrument type 8025. Both inspectors disagreed by stating: Inspector Hutchins, "That's not the one I saw, no." And Inspector Davey, "It's certainly not one of these instruments that were in there." I completely reject R-2 as an accurate image because I note that R-2 shows numbers in MPH (miles per hour) not knots as all the testimony mentioned and Exhibit R-1 (airspeed indicator) has on its face.

Arguments were made as to who and when various people were at the Vancouver inspection. Ms. Sandhu stated she was stopped from taxiing, shut down and the inspection started, then she telephoned maintenance from her cell phone. She also stated George Tingle was there for the inspection. Mr. Tingle testified that he received a phone call that they were being ramped and walked over. Inspector Davey was recalled to testify that after the inspection was when Mr. Tingle was met heading for the aircraft. I am not sure of the time frame of the inspection or the importance of who may have been there other than to reduce the credibility of Inspector Davey's testimony. The question of the charges in their elementary terms are: 1) was the aircraft operated with an unrecorded defect and 2) was the company aware of this.

The suggestion of a parts stockpile was made by the Respondents. Mr. R. Gill, "We have spare parts." Mr. Tingle was asked the question, "So you had a replacement airspeed indicator in stock?" Answer, "Yes, I did." When I checked the logbook entry I discovered that the replacement airspeed indicator was taken from aircraft C-FZGT as serviceable.

The notion was given by defence that there is no validity in measurements below 40 knots and therefore this space on the airspeed has no consequence to flight. I must object to this statement as the aircraft manufacturer, Britten-Norman, publishes and we see through the type certificate data sheet (M-5) that Vmc (minimum control speed) for model BN.2A is 39 knots. Granted 39 is close to 40, but it is still less, and Vmc is a critical number for a multi-engine aircraft.

There were other areas of discrepancy in the testimonies, such as the 20 plus knots of wind that were always blowing down the aircraft pitot tube. It sounded as if the aircraft was constantly aligned into the wind or at least in a position where the pitot tube received enough pressure to read positive. Inspector Hutchins' testimony would have been given more weight had he explained that he felt the aircraft was in the shade of a building or sitting crosswind or downwind; this he did not cover well. I even asked the question of Captain Sandhu if there was a time when her crew were doing checks while taxiing crosswind or backtracking, she never commented that the airspeed was zero/vertical. Aircrews that I have flown with would have been thrilled to point out an inspector's (be they FAA, Transport Canada or Company) error like taxiing downwind and seeing an airspeed "less than zero."

The MEL issue was raised as contributing. Perhaps, as the frequency of inspections indicates, it certainly appears that Regency Express was being watched closely, but the charges refer to operating with a known defect and not recording it in the journey log book. Why was the airspeed indicator problem chosen as the snag to press charges on? Maybe because the airspeed indicator is not an item deferrable on a MEL. The roof panel which both Mr. R. Gill and Ms. Sandhu referred to may have been deferrable though I noticed it was not written in the journey log either.

We must also look at who put the eventual entry in the log. Captains are paid to make decisions and stick to their action plans. If Captain Sandhu did not agree with the airspeed snag and maintenance was present (though it is in dispute when George Tingle arrived), then allow maintenance to verify the problem and enter the snag as their discovery, just as they would in a separate inspection. As a Captain I would not have made that entry and certainly not have signed it.


International Express charges carried a combined monetary penalty of $15,000.00. This is 25% of the maximum permitted assessment. I feel this is fair and recommend no changes.

Ms. Sandhu had two charges dropped under preliminary motions. This reduced the monetary penalty from $700.00 to $200.00. The leniency shown is justified, and I feel the remaining $200.00 assessment and the experience of this process will encourage her to be cognizant of a captain's responsibilities.


The Minister has proven all elements of the offences and the assessments of $15,000.00 against International Express and $200.00 against Ms. Sandhu stand.

William D. Nicholson
Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada

Appeal decision
Allister W. Ogilvie, Herbert Lee, Sandra Lloyd

Decision: March 11, 2005

We dismiss the appeal and reduce the penalty to $5,000.00. That amount is payable to the Receiver General for Canada and must be received by the Tribunal within fifteen days of service of this decision.

An appeal hearing on this matter was held Wednesday, February 23, 2005 at Robson Square, in Vancouver, British Columbia at 10:00 hours.


International Express Air Charters Ltd. is an air operator based in Vancouver, B.C. It utilizes Britten-Norman Islander aircraft. On May 14, 2002, one of its aircraft C-FDEB (DEB) was engaged in flying freight operations in and out of Vancouver, B.C. to other destinations in B.C. and Washington, USA.

While on the ramp in Bellingham, Washington, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector conducted a check of the aircraft and its crew. He noted some anomalies in the aircraft. Among them was an allegedly malfunctioning airspeed indicator. The crew elected to call International Express offices in Vancouver to discuss the situation with them in the presence of the inspector. After the consultation, they elected to carry on with their itinerary, flying from Bellingham to Victoria, and then on to Vancouver.

In Vancouver they were met by a Minister of Transport inspector who had been made aware of the alleged anomalies in the aircraft by the FAA inspector. The Transport Canada inspector was also of the opinion that the airspeed indicator was malfunctioning. Noting that the defect had not yet been entered in the journey log book, he instructed the crew to enter it as such.

Subsequent to that, International Express was issued a Notice of Assessment of Monetary Penalty in the amount of $15,000.00. It contained four allegations. The Notice alleged two violations of section 605.06 of the Canadian Aviation Regulation (CARs), in that International Express conducted takeoffs from Bellingham to Victoria and then from Victoria to Vancouver when the airspeed indicator equipment required by the regulations was not serviceable.

It also alleged two violations of section 703.19 of the CARs, in that the company permitted a person to take off on those same two legs when the airspeed indicator defect had not been entered in the journey log as soon as practicable, and in any case, before the next flight.

International Express asked for a review of the Minister's decision to assess a monetary penalty. A hearing of the matter was held before a single member, Mr. William Nicholson, in Vancouver, B.C. on June 28 and 29, 2004. He found that the Minister had proved all the elements of the offence and upheld the assessment of the penalty.


From that determination, International Express appealed stating the following grounds:

  • Further evidence, which was not considered by the Tribunal, indicates that the operational test performed on the airspeed indicator was flawed.
  • The Review Determination was returned outside the prescribed time limitations.
  • Numerous omissions were noted in the Review Determination.
  • The monetary penalty imposes an excessive hardship on the operating company and its employees.

Representation of the Parties

New Evidence

International Express wished to adduce additional evidence in the form of an excerpt from a well-known aviation publication. The effect of the article would have been to challenge the efficacy of the test conducted on the airspeed indicator during the ramp check in Vancouver. As it was an article that could have been produced at the review hearing, we have ruled that it was previously available and hence not admissible, pursuant to section 14 of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act. That section stipulates that the Tribunal at appeal may hear evidence only if it was necessary for the purpose of the appeal and was not previously available.

Appellant - International Express

Mr. Harris presented the case for the appellant. He did not pursue the second ground of appeal relating to the determination being returned outside the prescribed time limitations. In his oral submissions he asserted that the determination was based on errors of fact and law. Alternatively, if violations were to be found, he asked that the monetary penalty be diminished.

Mr. Harris stated that the member identified the issue regarding possible operation with an unrecorded defect and the company's awareness of it (due diligence) but submits that the member then addressed irrelevant facts and made questionable interpretation of facts.

Some illustrations of this were the member's adverse findings of credibility of International Express's personnel regarding the issue of spare parts and the finding regarding the 39 knots minimum control speed (Vmc).

As an example of the member's error of fact, Mr. Harris cites the finding that the airspeed indicator should have been fluctuating in gusting wind conditions when that was not the case.

A further factual error was the finding that there was defect in the airspeed indicator when the captain, after having consulted an aircraft maintenance engineer(AME), decided that there was no defect and elected to proceed. In absence of any belief that there was a defect in the indicator, the captain did not record any defect in the log book.

Mr. Harris argued that the company exercised all due diligence to prevent the contravention. The captain, when ramp checked in Bellingham, called the company and spoke to Mr. Gill and Mr. Tingle about the possible problem. They concluded that there was no defect and therefore no need to enter one in the log book. All reasonable steps were taken to avoid committing the contravention.

It was asserted that the review determination was flawed in law as the member had not considered the provisions of section 8.5 of the Act regarding due diligence.

The appeal should be allowed and the charges and penalty dismissed on the foregoing basis.

Mr. Harris also submitted that should the panel dismiss the appeal there were mitigating factors which should cause the penalty to be reduced to a sum of $2,500.00.

Respondent - Minister of Transport

Miss Laperle presented written and oral submissions on behalf of the Minister. She asserted that findings of fact or credibility should not be overturned unless they are unreasonable. In this case, the record revealed that the findings were supported by the evidence.

The member was faced with conflicting evidence. He evaluated the evidence and gave more weight to the Minister's witnesses as their memory had been refreshed by reviewing timely notes.

Miss Laperle emphasized that all due diligence must be exercised. This case did not fit that criteria. She argued that the company had knowledge of a possible defect from the FAA inspector. International Express could have sent maintenance to Bellingham to look at the problem.

She urged the panel to dismiss the appeal. The penalties provided were in accordance with a first offence and should be upheld.


The member was faced with contradictory evidence. He made findings of fact and credibility in the face of those contradictions. We are guided by the jurisprudence which states that those findings should not be overturned unless there is an entire absence of evidence to support it, or there is some evidence concerning the finding, but it is nonetheless unreasonable and incapable of being supported by the evidence.[1]

The record shows that the member did rely on evidence. When faced with contradictory evidence, he acknowledged it and stated the reasons why he preferred the evidence that he did. As an example regarding the markings on the airspeed indicator, he stated that he preferred the inspectors evidence as it was reinforced by timely notes. He rejected the evidence of the illustrations of airspeed indicators (Exhibit R-2) proffered by the company, as the depictions were all in miles per hour (MPH) whereas the testimony spoke to knots.

We hold that his finding that there was a defect in the airspeed indicator is supported by evidence that he accepted as credible. Both Inspectors Hutchins and Davey testified that the airspeed indicator was not operating as it should. Although Captain Sandhu testified to the contrary, the member favored the testimony of the inspectors as their memory was refreshed by timely notes. Mr. Tingle, the AME of the company, eventually conceded that there was something wrong with the system.

The other constituent elements of the alleged contraventions regarding both sections of the CARs were not in issue. Once the defect in the airspeed indicator was proven, the contraventions were made out.

Mr. Harris' written submission stated that the review determination was flawed in law by not considering the provisions of section 8.5 of the Aeronautics Act regarding due diligence. We do not agree with that assertion.

Most contraventions of the Aeronautics Act and its subordinate legislation are considered to be strict liability offences. Tribunal jurisprudence Shermet v. Minister of Transport[2] has provided guidance on the issue. The panel in the Shermet case stated:

Once the party alleging the contravention has proved the constituent elements of a strict liability offence on a balance of probabilities, the onus then shifts to the alleged offender to prove on a balance of probabilities that he exercised all due diligence to avoid commission of the offence. This assertion respecting a defence to strict liability offences was set out in the case of R. v Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299, and is also codified in section 8.5 of the Aeronautics Act.

It can be seen that the onus shifted to the alleged offender, International Express, to adduce evidence and argue that the company had taken all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence. In this instance, whether by strategic choice or oversight, counsel for the company at the review level never raised the issue.

However, the issue of due diligence defense was raised before this panel. Mr. Harris submits that the evidence reveals due diligence. When confronted by the FAA inspector, Captain Sandhu phoned Mr. Gill from Bellingham. He in turn included Mr. Tingle, the AME, in the conversations regarding the possible deficiencies. They decided that none existed. Hence there was no requirement to enter anything in the log book. Mr. Harris says that all reasonable steps were taken to avoid committing the contravention.

We are unable to concur with the appellant's position. The FAA inspector raised a question as to the serviceability of the airspeed indicator. Mr. Gill indicated that the company had an arrangement with a firm in Bellingham to provide maintenance. He also said that an extra crew and aircraft were sitting in Victoria which could be utilized if necessary. For all due diligence to have been exercised, we find that the aircraft should have been checked out in Bellingham, or the other aircraft substituted until the serviceability of the airspeed indicator was actually established.


The Minister has argued that the sanction is in accord with the guidelines for a first offence and should be upheld.

The appellant has submitted that the circumstances warrant a reduction in the quantum of the penalty. We concur with that proposition.

The Wyer decision[3] has been utilized for guidance in relation to the principles of sanctioning.

The appeal panel there stated the principles of determining the appropriate penalty included at least having regard to a) denunciation, b) deterrence, c) rehabilitation and d) enforcement recommendations.

They addressed a number of factors, both aggravating and mitigating. We do not see that aggravating circumstances arise here. Some of the mitigating circumstances that the Wyer panel enunciated are:

  • no previous offences
  • degree with of cooperation with authorities
  • occurrence impact on aviation safety

We find that mitigating circumstances exist. The company was conciliatory and cooperative throughout. In Vancouver, the company did not challenge Inspector Davey's findings but immediately removed and replaced the faulty instrument. The record does not reveal any prior history of violations. Although potentially serious, this occurrence did not have an impact on aviation safety.

We find that both the principles of denunciation and deterrence can be served by a lesser penalty. We see it as sufficient to ensure the company's compliance in the future and to act as a deterrent to others. The cooperative attitude of the company makes us believe that a greater sum is not required for rehabilitation purposes. The penalty levied was in accord with the Minister's Regulatory Compliance Procedures Manual. The manual attempts to set out a range of penalties that would apply equally to all offenders. However, it is a guide and what we must determine is what should this offender receive for this offence, under these circumstances. We have come to the conclusion that the foregoing criteria can be served if the company pays a penalty of $5,000.00.


We dismiss the appeal. However, for the reasons addressed above, we reduce the sanction from $15,000.00 to $5,000.00.

March 11, 2005

Reasons for Appeal Decision by:

Allister Ogilvie, Vice-Chairperson


Sandra K. Lloyd, Member
Herbert Lee, Member

[1] Trent Wade Moore v. Minister of Transport, appeal determination, [1991], C-0138-33.

[2] Harry Edward Joseph Shermet v. Minister of Transport, appeal determination, [1996], C-1021-02.

[3] Kurt William M. Wyer v. Minister of Transport, appeal determination, [1988], O-0075-33.