I Cite as: Wilson Fuel Company v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 1990 NSCA 98 t S.C.A. No. 02233 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA I APPEAL DIVISION I Jones, Chipman and Freeman, JJ.A. BETWEEN: I WILSON FUEL COMPANY G.A. Richard I LIMITED J.T. Rafferty for the appellant Appellant J. McGowan, Q.C. I A.S. Beveridge - and - for Irving Oil I W.M. Wilson THE ATTORNEY GENERAL for Attorney General OF NOVA SCOTIA, THE of Nova Scotia I BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR Appeal Heard: THE PROVINCE OF NOVA December 13, 1990 SCOTIA, IRVING OIL ~ LIMITED, THE RETAIL Judgment Delivered: GASOLINE DEALERS December 13, 1990 ASSOCIATION OF NOVA I SCOTIA, FRED GEORGE, JERRY BERMAN, ROY TRUDE Respondents I I THE COURT: Appeal dismissed without costs per oral reasons for judgment of Jones, J.A.; Chipman and Freeman, JJ.A. concurring I I I l I [
t The reasons for orally by: I . JONES, J .A.: This is an appeal Public Utilities Board dismissing I application for the issuance I to sell gasoline at a service on Pleasant Street, in the City of Dartmouth. I The application was of three other service stations I was conflicting evidence I additional public service in the effect of increased competition. ~ proposals of the appellant a price of 2 cents per litre less I This fact is referred to in the decision of the Board I particularly when commenting witness. The Board also ref erred to I criteria to be considered as set forth in the Board's decision in 1981 on an application by Shell Canada. I The Board concluded by saying: I "The Board has carefully evidence and the exhibits before it, together with the submissions parties. It is to be I is not satisfied from the applicant either owns to obtain the property upon which it proposes l to locate its station. I [ judgment were delivered from the decision of the the appellant's of a retailer's license station to be located opposed by the operators in the area. There regarding the need for the general area and One of the was to sell gasoline at than competitors. on the appellant's expert the appropriate reviewed all the of counsel for the noted that the Board the evidence that or has an option
- 2 -It is also to be noted was presented which would the public in this area being adequately served. The Board is satisfied of a license for an outlet in the proposed adverse ef feet upon those outlets presently licensed. It is satisfied that those stations are not operating at maximum is not satisfied that developments within the area which would justify this application and it is the number of presently and their hours of adequately for the requirements of the public in this area. The application is therefore dismissed." The appellant has raised appeal: "1. Did the Board the application on the not satisfied that sufficient legal interest where the proposed site was to be located? 2. Did the Board err to give consideration presented regarding the applicant's pricing policy and the policy?" On the first issue the Court is not prepared to say that the interest of an applicant in a site for a retail outlet is not a relevant consideration for the Board on an application license. We see no error considering that factor. 3 that no evidence establish that J is not presently J that the granting additional gasoline area would have an J capacity. It there have been any J Pleasant Street the granting of satisfied that J existing stations operation provide I J two issues on this improperly foreclose basis that it was the appellant had in the property l in law by failing to the evidence ] proposed implications of that l proposed l l for a retailer's in law in the Board l J I I
E t - 3 -The primary issue I second ground of appeal. is restricted to a question I The consideration of what is I convenience and necessity is See Union Gas Co. of Canada v. I Co. Ltd. (1957), S.C.R. 185, Court of Canada. I ~he main contention I that the Board failed to proposed pricing policy. This is based on the failure I of the Board to deal specifically From a review of the record ~ the Board failed to consider that issue. I in fact establishes the contrary. case it is the duty of the I and Fuel Oil Licensing Act in Nova Scotia. We are satisfied that the I consider the issue of pricing I no merit in the second ground of appeal. The appeal is dismissed without costs. I I Concurred in: l Chipman, E Freeman, [ on this appeal is the An appeal to this Court of law or jurisdiction. in the public interest, a matter for the Board. Sydenham Gas & Petroleum a decision of the Supreme of the appellant is consider the applicant's with the issue. we cannot conclude that The record Apart from this Board under the Gasoline to fix gasoline prices Board did and accordingly we see ?
J DRS J Boardroom J Halifax, Nova Scotia October 10, 1989 J ·I PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA J BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC UTILITIES J IN THE MATTER OF THE GASOLINE FUEL LICENSING ACT - and -8 -IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY WILSON'S FUEL COMPANY I LIMITED FOR A RETAIL GASOLINE LICENSE UNDER SAID ACT 9 l 111 BEFORE: Mr. A. Green, Q.C. l Chairman-Commissioner Mr. 8. Nickerson, Q.C. ,J " Commissioner : Mr. E. Rowe ir, Commissioner l Iii PRESENT: D. Livingstone, - Solicitor for the l 1 Applicant Mr. J.M. MacGowan, l Solicitor in Opposition \11 for Irving Oil with Mr. R. Chipman, 2fl ] Article Clerk 21 Mr. D. Mader, in 2'2 Opposition for the ] Retail Gasoline Dealers 23 Association WITNESSES: Mr. David Collins, l Manager of Wilson Fuels 25 Limited J Drake Recording Services - Halifax. N.S. CERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS I I
I l DRS I WITNESSES: I .I I I I ') I Ill ! I :,, I I "l I ~I I ~I I I 2J l 25 I Drake Recording Services - Halifax. N.S. CERTIFIED VERBATIM REPORTERS Dr. Arun Mukhopadhyay, Professor at St. Mary's University Mr. Fred George, Lessee of Pleasant Street Irving Station Mr. Roger Burns, Area Supervisor for Irving Oil for Halifax-Dartmouth Mr. Dale Mader, Executive Director of the Retail Gasoline Dealers Association Mr. Jerry Berman, Owner of Shell Service Station on Pleasant Street Mr. Roy Trude, Retailer of Woodside Texaco
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.