Decision No. 222-A-2015

July 20, 2015

APPLICATION by JetPro Consultants Inc. against NAV CANADA.

Case number: 
15-02999

INTRODUCTION

[1] JetPro Consultants Inc. (JetPro) filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) against NAV CANADA in which it claims that NAV CANADA is exceeding its mandate with respect to instrument procedure design, charges for instrument procedure design, and its Level of Service Policy (LOSP) creation and modification process.

[2] According to JetPro, the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, S.C., 1996, c. 20 (CANSCA) gives NAV CANADA the exclusive right to provide services such as Air Traffic Service and Aeronautical Information Services to Canada’s aviation industry. JetPro argues that NAV CANADA is exceeding its mandate by providing instrument procedure design services to airports and aerodromes in Canada which, according to JetPro, is not a CANSCA mandated role. JetPro also argues that by utilizing its CANSCA rights to charge for air navigation services to provide free instrument procedure design services, NAV CANADA is in contravention of the CANSCA.

[3] In addition, JetPro argues that in March 2015, NAV CANADA issued a revised LOSP and failed to follow its CANSCA defined process.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

[4] The Agency’s jurisdiction over appeals of NAV CANADAʼs charges is not unlimited. Its mandate is set out in the CANSCA, which sets out the grounds of appeal and who can appeal charges.

[5] Pursuant to subsection 42(1) of the CANSCA, charges by NAV CANADA for air navigation services may be appealed to the Agency. Section 43 of the CANSCA states that an appeal may only be made on one or more of the following grounds:

  • that one or more of the charging principles set out in section 35 have not been observed in establishing the charge;
  • that the notice requirements in section 36 have not been complied with;
  • that the announcement requirements in section 37 have not been complied with; and,
  • where subsection 37(2) applies, that, based on reasonable and prudent projections, the total annual revenue to be generated by the announced charge is greater than the total annual revenue to be generated by the charge as proposed in the notice.

[6] Section 44 of the CANSCA states that an appeal may be made by any user, group of users or representative organization of users. The term “user” is defined in the CANSCA as meaning “an aircraft operator.”

[7] Based on the information provided by JetPro and the information available on its Web site, the Agency is of the opinion that JetPro does not satisfy the definition of “user” as JetPro is not “an aircraft operator,” nor is it a group of users or representative organization of users.

CONCLUSION

[8] The Agency finds that JetPro has no standing, and therefore dismisses the application.

Member(s)

Raymon J. Kaduck
Date modified: