Search by
Facts of the case
Peg City Limo Corporation ("Peg City") is a commercial luxury car service that operates vehicle-for-hire trips to and from the James Armstrong Richardson International Airport in Winnipeg (the "Airport"), which is situated on the Airport Property — land owned by the Government of Canada and leased exclusively to the Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc. (the "WAA"). Peg City has been in business since January 2025 and, by its own admission, has been conducting commercial ground transportation operations at the Airport's passenger pick-up lane without holding a commercial licence issued by the WAA. The WAA operates under the Aeronautics Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-2, and was formally designated as the responsible Airport Authority by the federal Minister of Transport pursuant to the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act, S.C. 1992, c. 5. All roadways on the Airport Property — including those accessible to the public, such as the passenger pick-up lane — are privately owned and under the WAA's exclusive management and control. The WAA also issues two categories of commercial licences for ground operators: one for "on-demand" services and another for "pre-arranged" services. Limousine and taxi service providers must additionally hold a valid dispatcher licence from the City of Winnipeg.
Two related court actions were filed: CI 25-01-53968, in which Peg City is the plaintiff and the WAA is the defendant, and CI 25-01-54173, in which the WAA is the plaintiff and Peg City, Hollywood Transportation Services Inc., Hollywood Limousine Service Inc., Canada Bus Lines Inc., and John Doe Inc. are the defendants. All named corporate defendants in the WAA Matter are controlled by Rupinder Singh Brar. Both parties brought competing motions for interlocutory injunctive relief.
Policy, legislative, and contractual provisions at issue
The WAA's authority over the Airport Property derives from a net lease with the Crown in Right of Canada as Landlord, under which the WAA bears all costs of occupancy and operations. By virtue of this Lease and the governing legislation, the WAA has exclusive jurisdiction over all land-side operations at the Airport. The Traffic on the Land Side of Airports Regulations, SOR/2006-102 (the "TLSAR"), passed under the Aeronautics Act, regulates all pedestrian and vehicle traffic — private and commercial — on federally regulated airports, and also governs the design, construction, repair, and maintenance of roadways, speed and load limits, parking and stopping, movement of vehicles, loading areas, issuing of commercial licences, and the efficiency of airport operations. The WAA's website publicly sets out licence fees, arrival fees, and "dwell fees" applicable to all commercial ground operators. Peg City argued that the public lanes fall within a trespass exception under the Trespass Act, C.C.S.M. c. T156, of Manitoba, on the basis that these areas are open to the public without a fee or charge. The WAA countered that public access to the pick-up lane does not transform it into a public roadway, nor does it limit the WAA's authority to regulate or impose licensing conditions on commercial operators.
Reasoning and analysis
Rempel J. applied the RJR-MacDonald test, noting that neither party disputed that both motions raised a serious issue to be tried. On the foundational question of private property, the court accepted the WAA's position that every part of the Airport Property is private land belonging to the Government of Canada and subject to the WAA's exclusive control under the Lease. Public access to portions of the Airport Property does not create a public roadway; as the court noted by reference to R. v. Trabulsey, 1995 CanLII 1414 (ONCA), airport roadways are subject to the control of the federal Crown and are not dedicated to the public so as to deprive the owner of its fundamental right to restrict access. The court also drew support from R. v. Roshanimeydan, 2013 NSSC 106, in which a taxi service operating without a licence at the Halifax Airport Authority's leased property similarly failed to establish that there was no legal basis for the airport authority to require a commercial licence. The court rejected Peg City's argument that its commercial activity in the public lane does not constitute trespass, finding that the assertion had no merit on either a legal or evidentiary basis.
On the bad faith argument, Peg City's director Mr. Brar contended that the WAA's injunction motion was motivated by ill-will arising from separate litigation — the "Hollywood Litigation" — in which Hollywood Transportation Services Inc. had sued the WAA over the cancellation of a commercial licence. Rempel J. rejected this argument because the bad faith issue was not pleaded in Peg City's statement of claim, was denied by a WAA officer during cross-examination, and rested entirely on Mr. Brar's personal opinion. The court also noted that any grievance of Hollywood Transportation Services Inc. in the Hollywood Litigation could not transfer a benefit to the unrelated corporation Peg City, nor could it justify exempting Peg City from the WAA's licensing regime.
On irreparable harm in the WAA Matter, the court found that preventing unlicensed commercial operators from operating on the Airport Property would undermine the WAA's ability to credibly assert its exclusive authority to manage and control the Airport Property and regulate health and safety of the travelling public — an injury that could not be compensated through damages. Allowing a two-tiered commercial system would cause incalculable financial harm by creating an incentive for other licensed operators to abandon compliance with the licensing regime. On balance of convenience, the court held that the WAA's rights as a leaseholder of private property would be nullified by the time the matter reached trial if the injunction were denied, while requiring Peg City to comply with the existing commercial regulatory regime would not make an adequate remedy at trial impossible.
In the Peg City Matter, Peg City sought an injunction to prevent the WAA from enforcing trespass notices against it. The court found Peg City unable to establish irreparable harm, as no financial or business records were filed to substantiate its claims of economic catastrophe. The court observed that Peg City had been operating only since January 2025, and its financial records would not be extensive or difficult to analyze. Moreover, no explanation was provided as to why Peg City could not deploy its vehicles to other locations in Winnipeg. On balance of convenience, the court found that Peg City's requested relief was overly broad and practically unmanageable, and that maintaining a status quo permitting unlicensed commercial operations would create turmoil in the existing commercial regulatory scheme.
Ruling and overall outcome
Rempel J. granted the WAA's motion for an interlocutory injunction (CI 25-01-54173), restraining and prohibiting Peg City, Hollywood Transportation Services Inc., Hollywood Limousine Service Inc., Canada Bus Lines Inc., John Doe Inc., and all persons acting under their direction or on their behalf from trespassing on the Airport Property and from conducting any limousine, taxi, bus, or other commercial vehicle service at or on the Airport Property. The injunction excludes persons entering the Airport Property solely for personal purposes unconnected to the defendants' commercial activities. Peg City's own motion for an interlocutory injunction (CI 25-01-53968) was dismissed. No monetary award was made; the question of costs was reserved, with the court directing the parties to make written submissions if they could not agree, and providing that the WAA's cost briefs would be filed as soon as practicable with Peg City's responding briefs to follow within 21 days of receipt.
Plaintiff
Defendant
Court
Court of King's Bench ManitobaCase Number
CI 25-01-53968; CI 25-01-54173Practice Area
Civil litigationAmount
Not specified/UnspecifiedWinner
PlaintiffTrial Start Date