Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central dispute concerns PRPA’s refusal of Trigon’s request to expand its lease rights to include handling and exporting LPG.

• Defendants argued Trigon’s claims were statute-barred based on knowledge of exclusivity rights granted in 2015 and 2018.

• Court found that claims tied to the lease could not be discovered until PRPA actually withheld consent in 2023.

• Reasonableness of PRPA’s refusal is a mixed question of fact and law requiring full trial.

• Defendants failed to meet the high burden for summary judgment under Rule 9-6.

• Summary judgment application was dismissed; costs left to be addressed separately.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties

Trigon Pacific Terminals Ltd. operates a bulk commodity export terminal at the Port of Prince Rupert under a long-standing lease with the Prince Rupert Port Authority (PRPA). The lease permits coal exports and other limited commodities but allows Trigon to request expansion of permitted uses, with PRPA not to unreasonably withhold consent. In 2015, PRPA granted Vopak Development Canada Inc. exclusivity over bulk liquid exports, which was later transferred to Ridley Island Energy Export Facility Limited Partnership (REEF). This exclusivity covered liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

In September 2023, Trigon requested PRPA’s consent to expand its operations to include LPG exports. PRPA refused, citing the exclusivity granted to REEF, its decade-long project development efforts, and the significant investment already made. Trigon then sued PRPA for breach of lease, alleging unreasonable withholding of consent and bad faith conduct, and later added REEF as a defendant.

Procedural history

Earlier in the litigation, Trigon applied for expanded document production, which the court dismissed, finding its requests overly broad, speculative, and not supported by evidence. The court awarded costs to the defendants, emphasizing that the case’s central issue was whether PRPA breached its lease obligations, not the commercial wisdom of its agreements with third parties.

Summary judgment application

The defendants sought summary judgment to dismiss Trigon’s claims, arguing they were statute-barred because Trigon had knowledge of the exclusivity rights as early as 2015. They contended Trigon knew any future LPG request would be denied.

The court rejected this, holding that the alleged breach could not occur until PRPA actually withheld consent in November 2023. Knowledge of exclusivity alone did not make the claim discoverable before then. The court found genuine issues of fact remained about whether PRPA’s refusal was unreasonable or made in bad faith.

Outcome

The court dismissed the summary judgment application. This means Trigon’s claims remain alive for trial, and the reasonableness of PRPA’s refusal will be tested on a full evidentiary record. No damages were awarded at this stage. Costs were not determined, with the parties given the option to schedule a hearing within 60 days.