Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dispute concerns whether the Canadian Transit Company (CTC) possesses a perpetual and exclusive right to own, operate, and collect tolls from the Ambassador Bridge, and if the construction of the Gordie Howe International Bridge by Canada infringes upon those rights.

• Interpretation of the Canadian Transit Company Act (CTC Act), specifically regarding whether it grants exclusivity or a franchise to CTC, is a central legal issue.

• The relationship between statutory rights provided by Parliament and the common law principles of franchises and toll bridges is under examination.

• The Crown’s prerogative powers, including the right to grant toll franchises and the implications of exclusivity, are being considered.

• The sufficiency of the evidentiary record for summary judgment and the existence of a genuine issue requiring a trial are key procedural matters.

• No final determination of damages, costs, or compensation has been made; the motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the matter will proceed to trial.

Facts of the case

The Canadian Transit Company (CTC), a Michigan-based company, owns and operates the Canadian half of the Ambassador Bridge, which connects Windsor, Ontario, to Detroit, Michigan. The CTC was created in 1921 by an Act of Parliament, which allowed it to build the bridge and charge tolls. The company is now owned by the Detroit International Bridge Company, which also owns and operates the American half of the bridge.

In 2008, after consultations and assessments, the Government of Canada received a recommendation to build a new bridge across the Detroit River. In 2012, Parliament passed the Bridge to Strengthen Trade Act, providing statutory authority for the new Gordie Howe International Bridge, which is under construction and expected to open later in 2025. The Ambassador Bridge and the Gordie Howe Bridge are about three kilometres apart.

In 2012, CTC sued the Attorney General of Canada regarding the decision to build the Gordie Howe Bridge. CTC amended its statement of claim in 2013 and again in 2020. CTC seeks declarations that Canada granted it a perpetual and exclusive right to own, operate, and collect tolls from a viable international border crossing near the Ambassador Bridge, and that Canada is infringing these rights by building the Gordie Howe Bridge. Alternatively, CTC seeks a declaration that it is entitled to compensation for infringement and de facto expropriation of its rights, as well as compensation for nuisance, trespass to land, breach of contract, or negligent misrepresentation.

Policy terms and statutory provisions at issue

The case focuses on the interpretation of the CTC Act. Section 8 of the Act allows CTC to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge and charge tolls, while Section 14 permits amalgamation with other companies and the transfer of “the franchise” as property. The parties dispute whether the Act, when read in light of common law principles about franchises and the Crown’s prerogative, grants CTC exclusive rights or simply authorizes its operations.

Summary judgment motion and legal arguments

Canada brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 20, arguing that CTC’s claim to a perpetual and exclusive right does not raise a genuine issue requiring a trial and that the action should be dismissed. Canada argued that the CTC Act does not expressly grant CTC a perpetual and exclusive right to own, operate, and collect tolls from a viable border crossing. CTC relied on the CTC Act and other documents, but the court found it unnecessary to consider anything except the CTC Act for this motion.

The court analyzed the statutory text, the historical and legal context of franchises, and the common law principles governing toll bridges. The court found that the question of whether Parliament intended to grant CTC exclusive rights is a genuine issue requiring a trial and cannot be resolved on summary judgment.

Ruling and outcome

Justice Robert Centa of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed Canada’s motion for summary judgment, finding that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the nature and scope of the rights granted to CTC under the CTC Act. The court did not make a final or binding legal determination and emphasized that the proper interpretation of the Act and the delineation of CTC’s rights must be determined at trial. No final decision on damages, costs, or compensation was made. The successful party on this motion is the Canadian Transit Company, as the motion to dismiss its claim was denied. The total monetary award, costs, or damages have not yet been determined and will depend on the outcome of the trial or further proceedings. The parties were instructed to address the issue of costs of the motion through written submissions if they could not agree.