DECISION  
2017 NSUARB 175  
M07432  
NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD  
IN THE MATTER OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT  
- and -  
IN THE MATTER OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT  
- and -  
IN THE MATTER OF Motor Carrier License No. P00595 and Extra-Provincial Operating  
License No. XP01078 issued to STOCK TRANSPORTATION LTD.  
BEFORE:  
Dawna J. Ring, Q.C., Member  
APPLICANT:  
STOCK TRANSPORTATION LIMITED  
Michael P. Scott, LL.B  
Jeremy P. Smith, LL.B  
BOARD COUNSEL:  
HEARING DATE:  
S. Bruce Outhouse, Q.C.  
Stacy O’Neill, LL.B  
January 30 and February 1, 2017  
ORAL CLOSING  
SUBMISSIONS:  
February 9, 2017  
March 30, 2017  
UNDERTAKINGS  
DATE ADVISED  
SUBMISSIONS  
COMPLETE:  
April 6, 2017  
DECISION DATE:  
DECISION:  
November 14, 2017  
The Board will hear from the parties to decide what, if  
any, terms and conditions it may order for the current  
school bus services. The remainder of the Licenses are  
cancelled at dates and under interim terms to be  
Document: 259021  
- 2 -  
decided. The Board retains jurisdiction to complete  
these.  
Document: 259021  
- 3 -  
TABLE OF CONTENTS  
I
II  
III  
IV  
V
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 5  
ISSUES .............................................................................................................. 13  
WITNESSES ...................................................................................................... 13  
INDUSTRY......................................................................................................... 15  
FACTS................................................................................................................ 22  
1.  
2.  
3.  
Stock and Knowledge .............................................................................. 22  
Before Notice of Show Cause.................................................................. 27  
Show Cause Proceeding ......................................................................... 49  
(A)  
(B)  
(C)  
(D)  
(E)  
(F)  
(G)  
(H)  
(I)  
Information Requests.................................................................... 49  
May Montreal Trip ......................................................................... 53  
Murray Corner............................................................................... 61  
Newbridge Saint John Trip............................................................ 61  
August 12-15 Trip.......................................................................... 63  
Random Inspection ....................................................................... 65  
Newbridge Contract ...................................................................... 66  
October 20-23 Trip........................................................................ 71  
November 1-5 Trip ........................................................................ 72  
November 17-20 ........................................................................... 74  
Other Movements.......................................................................... 74  
(J)  
(K)  
4.  
Timeline ................................................................................................... 77  
VI  
ARGUMENTS..................................................................................................... 82  
1.  
2.  
Board Counsel......................................................................................... 83  
Stock........................................................................................................ 87  
VII  
FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 88  
1. Scope of Motor Carrier Act ...................................................................... 88  
(A)  
(B)  
(C)  
Statute........................................................................................... 88  
Arguments..................................................................................... 89  
Board Finding................................................................................ 96  
1)  
2)  
Summary............................................................................ 96  
Analysis.............................................................................. 98  
(a)  
(b)  
(c)  
(d)  
(e)  
(f)  
Interpretation Act ..................................................... 98  
Plain Reading of Definition ...................................... 99  
Overview of MC Act............................................... 100  
Object .................................................................... 102  
History ................................................................... 103  
Occasion and Necessity ........................................ 103  
Consequences....................................................... 105  
1. Safety.............................................................. 106  
2. Negative Impact on Transportation Services... 107  
3. Administration.................................................. 109  
(g)  
3)  
Conclusion........................................................................ 111  
2.  
Charge 1. Stock using its HMC to transport passengers from and/or to the  
Province of Nova Scotia contrary to section 4 of the Motor Vehicle  
Transport Act ......................................................................................... 112  
Document: 259021  
- 4 -  
3.  
4.  
Charge 2. Stock using its HMC to transport students from Newbridge  
Academy upon a highway within the Province of Nova Scotia, contrary to  
s. 7(1) of the MC Act.............................................................................. 114  
Charge 3. Stock using its HMC and its [school bus] Vehicle Unit No.  
25486 to transport students from Newbridge Academy free of charge,  
contrary to s. 22 of the MC Act .............................................................. 116  
Charge 4. Stock’s failure to make the HMC available or use the HMC for  
the purposes set out in the Licenses ..................................................... 118  
Charge 5. Stock resisting or willfully obstructing an inspector in the  
execution of his or her duty or his or her exercise of powers by not  
cooperating and providing all requested information to the Motor Carrier  
Division, Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal,  
contrary to s. 35(2) of the MC Act.......................................................... 125  
5.  
6.  
(A)  
(B)  
Montreal Trip............................................................................... 126  
Saint John Trip............................................................................ 129  
7.  
8.  
9.  
Charge 6. Stock’s failure to charge rates for charter services in conformity  
with its Licenses contrary to s. 22 & 23(1) of the MC Act....................... 131  
Charge 7. Stock leasing its HMC to Newbridge Academy for the transport  
of students, contrary to s. 7(1) & s. 22 of the MC Act ............................ 133  
Charge 8. Any other breaches which become known to the Board in the  
proceedings ........................................................................................... 143  
(A)  
Stock Misled the Board ............................................................... 144  
1)  
2)  
3)  
IR Responses................................................................... 144  
Not processing HMC movements like all others............... 150  
Board Hearing .................................................................. 151  
(B)  
Stock joined two licenses together without authority to do so  
contrary to s. 8(g) of the Board Public Passenger Motor Carrier Act  
Regulations................................................................................. 152  
Stock transported school officials from the Halifax Regional School  
Board .......................................................................................... 154  
In addition to the above breaches, Stock also used various vehicles  
including its school and activity buses and HMC, and/or operated  
school bus services, contrary to s. 7(1) of the MC Act. ............... 154  
Stock demanded its drivers drive the HMC after they exceeded  
their permitted hours of being on duty contrary to s. 12(2) of the  
Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations under  
the MVT Act ................................................................................ 155  
Stock requested its drivers falsify their Daily Log contrary to s. 86(2)  
of the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations  
under the MVT Act ...................................................................... 168  
(C)  
(D)  
(E)  
(F)  
VIII REMEDIES....................................................................................................... 169  
IX CONCLUSION.................................................................................................. 180  
SCHEDULE “A........................................................................................................... 184  
LEGISLATION.................................................................................................. 184  
X
Document: 259021  
- 5 -  
I
SUMMARY  
A Notice of Show Cause Hearing dated December 2, 2016, was issued to  
[1]  
Stock Transportation Limited (Stock); its Regional Manager, Troy Phinney; and Director  
of Charter Services, Tina Coldwell. They were directed to attend before the Board to  
show why Stock’s Motor Carrier License No. P00595 (MC License 595) and Extra-  
Provincial Operating License No. XP01078 (XP License) and (collectively Licenses)  
should not be amended, suspended, or cancelled for failure to operate and furnish  
services in conformity with its Licenses, pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act, R.S.N.S.  
1989, c. 292 (MC Act) and the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 29 (3rd  
Supp.) (MVT Act).  
[2]  
Stock was represented by counsel, Michael Scott and Jeremy Smith. The  
Show Cause proceedings were advanced by Board counsel, S. Bruce Outhouse, Q.C.  
and Stacy O’Neill. The hearing occurred in the Board’s hearing room on January 30  
and February 1, 2017. Oral arguments were provided on February 9, 2017.  
Undertakings were filed and counsel advised the Board on April 6, 2017, that no further  
submissions would be filed as a result.  
[3]  
The Notice of Show Cause included all documents known to the Board at  
the time and begins as follows:  
TAKE NOTICE Stock Transportation Ltd. (“Stock Transportation”), that Troy Phinney and  
Tina Coldwell are required to attend before the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board  
(“Board”) to show why Motor Carrier License No. P00595 and Extra-Provincial Operating  
License No. XP01078 (“Licenses”) should not be amended, suspended or cancelled for  
failure to operate and furnish service in conformity with the Licenses, pursuant to the  
Motor Carrier Act (“MC Act'), R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 292, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act,  
R.S.C. 1985, c. 29 (3rd Supp.) (“Motor Vehicle Transport Act"), and all orders, rules,  
regulations and schedules made thereunder, including:  
1. using its Highway Motor Coach (“HMC”) to transport passengers from and/or  
to the Province of Nova Scotia contrary to section 4 of the Motor Vehicle  
Transport Act;  
Document: 259021  
 
- 6 -  
2. using its HMC to transport students from Newbridge Academy upon a highway  
within the Province of Nova Scotia, contrary to s. 7(1) of the MC Act,  
3. using its HMC and its Vehicle Unit No. 25486 to transport students from  
Newbridge Academy free of charge, contrary to s. 22 of the MC Act;  
4. failure to make the HMC available or use the HMC for the purposes set out in  
the Licenses;  
5. resisting or willfully obstructing an inspector in the execution of his or her duty  
or his or her exercise of powers by not cooperating and providing all requested  
information to the Motor Carrier Division, Department of Transportation and  
Infrastructure Renewal, contrary to s. 35(2) of the MC Act,  
6. failure to charge rates for charter services in conformity with its Licenses  
contrary to s. 22 & 23(1) of the MC Act;  
7. leasing its HMC to Newbridge Academy for the transport of students, contrary  
to s. 7(1) & s. 22 of the MC Act, and,  
8. any other breaches which become known to the Board in the proceedings.  
[Notice of Show Cause Hearing, December 2, 2016, p. 2]  
[4]  
The alleged breaches were also referred to as charges, therefore, either  
term is used.  
[5]  
The Licenses at risk of being cancelled, suspended and/or amended are  
those Stock acquired from Perry Rand Transportation Group Limited (Perry Rand) in  
2013. Each provides authority for Stock to operate various services. Under both  
Licenses, Stock is authorized to provide charter services to any organized group and  
had contract services which have expired. Under MC License 595, Stock is also  
authorized to provide school bus services for the Conseil Scolaire Acadien Provincial  
(CSAP) and Annapolis Valley Regional School Board. Stock operates approximately  
500 vehicles.  
[6]  
Stock also holds a Motor Carrier License No. P02714 (MC License 2714)  
under which it operates school bus services for CSAP and the Halifax Regional School  
Board (also HRSB). This License is not part of this Show Cause proceeding.  
Document: 259021  
- 7 -  
[7]  
The object of the legislation is to ensure there are safe, quality,  
sustainable motor carrier transportation services for those in and/or coming to Nova  
Scotia (the Industry). To achieve this, the Legislature regulates the Industry including  
safety, licensing, inspection, compliance and enforcement.  
[8]  
Motor carriers operating public passenger vehicles on the highways are to  
do so in accordance with the Acts, orders, rules, regulations, schedules and their  
licenses (s. 22) (collectively also referred to as the “Acts”). The Board is given authority  
to accomplish, administer and enforce the objects of the Act. Inspectors of the Motor  
Carrier Division of the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal (MCD)  
are authorized to inspect the vehicles and investigate to ensure compliance. No one is  
to resist or willfully obstruct inspectors in the exercise of their duties (s. 35(2)).  
[9]  
Safety is the primary concern. These are the largest passenger vehicles  
on the highways. An accident involving one of these vehicles can cause serious injury  
or death to the passengers on board and to others travelling on the highway.  
[10]  
The two major components affecting safety are the driver and the vehicle.  
Comprehensive regulations set specific hours of work and rest to ensure drivers of  
these vehicles do not fall asleep at the wheel and/or are too tired to drive them safely.  
Drivers are required to keep daily logs of their hours. Motor carriers are prohibited from  
requesting their drivers to operate the vehicle beyond their permitted hours or to falsify  
their logs.  
[11]  
The vehicles are subject to comprehensive inspections twice a year, in  
addition to any random or roadside inspections. Major deficiencies must be repaired  
Document: 259021  
- 8 -  
and the vehicle satisfactorily re-inspected before it may operate again. Minor repairs  
are generally provided a date for completion.  
[12]  
Ultimately, safety is only achieved by motor carrierscompliance. With  
thousands of vehicle movements each year, it is impossible, and should be  
unnecessary, for the inspectors to monitor each vehicle movement, in particular  
considering the number of vehicle mechanical inspections required each year.  
[13]  
Sustainability of these services in Nova Scotia is achieved by the Board  
regulating the licensing of the vehicles which mainly includes determining the terms of  
service and setting rates. The former sets the parameters for the services similar to a  
seller’s territory. Rates must be sufficient to cover the costs of providing quality safe  
service and a small profit.  
[14]  
Stock’s representative at the Show Cause hearing was Mr. Phinney, who  
became Regional Manager in 2009 and in charge of its offices from Alberta to the  
Maritime Provinces. The Board also heard from the Director and Acting Manager of the  
MCD; three previous or current Stock drivers; the CEO of Newbridge Academy  
(Newbridge) and its Director of Varsity Hockey; and the Director of Sales for  
Ambassstours.  
[15]  
After hearing from all witnesses and considering all evidence and  
arguments, the Board finds Stock has repeatedly operated its public passenger  
vehicles, including its school buses, as it wished and contrary to the Acts, rules,  
regulations, its Licenses, and orders; even drivers’ safety regulations. It was cavalier  
about these. As Mr. Phinney stated about the first May trip,” we did it anyway”.  
Document: 259021  
- 9 -  
[16]  
The Board also finds Stock repeatedly conducted itself in a manner to hide  
its delinquent operations from being detected. First, while knowing the information,  
Stock did not answer the questions of the Inspector and the Director of the MCD;  
provided misleading and/or incomplete information to them; and in one instance, gave  
false information to a customer to forward on to the MCD.  
[17]  
Second, for movements of some of its vehicles, Stock did not generate,  
produce, or maintain any of Stock’s normal business records including not inputting the  
movements into its computer programs or maintaining documentation including those  
required to be kept with drivers’ daily logs to ensure compliance with those regulations.  
[18]  
would attend before the court and pay a fine, if ordered.  
[19] Much of the information became known to the Board through these  
When Stock’s delinquent conduct was detected and it was ticketed, Stock  
proceedings and often only after most of the other witnesses had testified. However,  
the Board finds Stock provided false, misleading and/or incomplete information to the  
Board in this proceeding, including failing to provide full and accurate responses to  
Information Requests (IRs).  
[20]  
The Board also finds Stock’s behavior before the Show Case Notice,  
during the proceedings and at the hearing to be somewhat dismissive. As Board  
Counsel noted, knowing that these Licenses were in jeopardy of being cancelled, it was  
surprising how little information Mr. Phinney brought before the Board to address  
Stock’s operations.  
[21]  
Other than Ms. Blades, Mr. Phinney was the last witness to testify. When  
the preceding witnesses provided details of trips, itineraries, dates, groups (information  
Document: 259021  
- 10 -  
Stock had failed to provide) he confirmed their evidence honestly. Otherwise, the Board  
found his evidence to be at times evasive, incomplete, and/or appeared made up as the  
proceedings advanced.  
[22]  
Furthermore, despite always being represented by legal counsel, Mr.  
Phinney alleged he did not know the various rules, regulations (even safety ones), the  
Acts, or Board Decisions (not even those relating to Stock), or he blamed others. In  
summary, the Board finds he lacked credibility. Where evidence of Mr. Phinney and  
any other witness conflicts, the Board accepts the evidence of the latter.  
[23]  
The Board finds Stock failed to operate in accordance with the Act, order,  
rules, regulations and its Licenses as follows:  
1.  
used its HMC to transport passengers from and/or to the Province of Nova  
Scotia contrary to section 4 of the MVT Act;  
2.  
used its HMC to transport students from Newbridge upon a highway within  
the Province of Nova Scotia, contrary to s. 7(1) of the MC Act;  
3.  
used its HMC and its school bus Vehicle Unit No. 25486 to transport  
students from Newbridge free of charge, contrary to s. 22 of the MC Act;  
4.  
failed to make the HMC available or use the HMC for the purposes set out  
in the Licenses;  
5.  
resisted and willfully obstructed inspectors in the execution of their duties  
and powers by not cooperating and providing all requested information to the  
Motor Carrier Division, contrary to s. 35(2) of the MC Act,  
6.  
failed to charge rates for charter services in conformity with its Licenses  
contrary to s. 22 & 23(1) of the MC Act; and  
7.  
leased its HMC with Newbridge for the transport of students, contrary to s.  
7(1) & s. 22 of the MC Act,  
[24]  
The Board found the following breaches became known during the  
proceedings:  
Document: 259021  
- 11 -  
(a) used its school buses and/or operated school bus services contrary  
to s. 7(1) of the MC Act;  
(b) misled the Board including failing to provide full and accurate  
responses to Information Requests contrary to Board Regulatory  
Rules 16(2)(a);  
(c) joined two licenses together without authority to do so contrary to s.  
8(g) of the Board Public Passenger Motor Carrier Act Regulations  
(d) transported school officials from the Halifax Regional School Board;  
(e) demanded its drivers drive the HMC after they exceeded their  
permitted hours of being on duty contrary to s. 12(2) of the  
Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations under the  
MVT Act; and  
(f)  
requested its drivers falsify their Daily Driver’s Logs contrary to s.  
86(2) of the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service  
Regulations under the MVT Act.  
[25]  
The Board finds Stock’s conduct in the operation of its vehicles in Nova  
Scotia, in particular its misleading conduct in relation to the MCD and the Board, to  
exhibit a lack of fitness and willingness to provide safe, quality and proper services in  
accordance with the Act, rules, regulations and orders, even the safety regulations.  
[26]  
[27]  
The totality of these breaches is a significant concern for the Board.  
In addition, Stock’s repeated demands that its drivers drive after their  
regulated permitted 16 hours on duty is very disconcerting. It is contrary to the essential  
safety regulations for operating its vehicles. Furthermore, by terminating the  
employment of the two non-unionized employees who resisted these demands, the  
Board finds as the regulator that Stock sent a message to its other employees that they  
are to do as they are told or they could lose their job.  
[28]  
The Board is most concerned with the safety of the public including school  
children.  
Document: 259021  
- 12 -  
[29]  
The Board gave careful consideration to the appropriate remedy and  
whether to cancel these licenses in their entirety, including the school bus services  
which represents 98% of Stock’s operations.  
[30]  
The Board asked counsel to specifically address this issue and the school  
bus services in their closing arguments.  
[31]  
After considering all facts, arguments, the breaches, and s. 13 of the MC  
Act, the Board decided it will not cancel Stock’s Licenses in their entirety, but will  
provide Stock with an opportunity to present recommendations to address all of the  
breaches and concerns set out in this Decision as they relate to its current school bus  
services. The Board will hear from both counsel before deciding what, if any, terms and  
conditions may be appropriate for Stock’s current school bus services to protect the  
students. All other services on the Licenses are cancelled. The Board will also hear  
from counsel on the dates of termination and what, if any, interim terms and conditions  
should be ordered, other than for the overflow cruise ship services and use of the HMCs  
which are cancelled immediately, as the cruise ship season for 2017 is finished. The  
Board retains jurisdiction to complete these.  
[32]  
After Issues and Witnesses, the Board will first provide an overview of the  
regulation of the Industry. This is done for two reasons; first, it is the basis for the  
alleged breaches; and second, one of Mr. Phinney’s defences to the breaches and/or  
arguments for the appropriate Remedies is that he did not know the laws and rules  
applicable to Stock’s operations.  
Document: 259021  
- 13 -  
II  
ISSUES  
The general issues are:  
[33]  
1) Did Stock fail to operate and furnish motor carrier services in conformity with its  
Licenses, pursuant to the MC Act, MVT Act, and all orders, rules, regulations,  
and schedules made thereunder?  
2) If there was a failure to operate in conformity with the above, should the Board  
amend, suspend, and/or cancel Stock’s Licenses?  
[34]  
Where the Board has not addressed facts or issues in this Decision, it is  
because it did not find them to be material to its findings.  
[35]  
The parties have raised some legal issues in relation to the alleged  
breaches and remedies. These will be addressed under scope of the MC Act and/or  
specific charges.  
III  
WITNESSES  
The following witnesses were called by Board counsel. All testified under  
[36]  
subpoena except those with the MCD.  
[37]  
Natalie Aisthorpe was the Director of the MCD from June 3, 2009, to  
October 18, 2016.  
[38]  
John Penney worked with the MCD for 21 years and was its Chief  
Inspector from 2009 until October 18, 2016, when he became the Acting Manager.  
[39]  
Trevor MacEachern is the CEO of Newbridge Academy (Newbridge). It is  
a private sport school. At the relevant times to this proceeding, Newbridge rented  
space at the Sackville Sports Stadium (Sackville) for grades junior primary to grade five;  
Document: 259021  
   
- 14 -  
and at the East Hants Sportsplex (East Hants) for grades six to 12, as both had ice  
surfaces. Newbridge owned four 15-passenger vans and one 45-passenger bus.  
[40]  
Patrick Flynn is the Director of the Varsity Hockey Programs at  
Newbridge.  
[41]  
Sean Buckland is the Director of Sales for Ambassatours, and works with  
Murphy’s on the Water, both related to Absolute Charters Inc. (Ambassatours or  
Absolute). He worked for Absolute for nine years and was in his current role for the last  
two. In this capacity, he charters public passenger vehicles to service cruise ships.  
[42]  
Kelly Bishop was a spare driver with Stock commencing February 1, 2016.  
She had been a driver for three years in Saskatchewan and is trained on all vehicle  
types operated by Stock, including its mini-buses, buses for special needs children, all  
three school buses, and HMCs. As a spare driver with Stock, Ms. Bishop did not have a  
specific run, however, most weeks, she worked five days a week. At the time of the  
hearing, she was a part-time driver with Ambassatours and also operated her own  
courier company.  
[43]  
Donald Andrew LePage worked as a spare driver with Stock beginning in  
November 2015. He mainly drove school buses, but also did work on the HMC. As a  
spare driver he would attend at Stock’s office at 5 o’clock in the morning to be assigned  
a school run after which he could be asked to do a portion of another run. If covering  
for someone sick or on leave he could do the same school run for three or four weeks.  
[44]  
Mr. Phinney has been in the transportation business his whole life and in  
the busing business since 2009.  
Document: 259021  
- 15 -  
[45]  
Stock called Carla Blades as its witness. Ms. Blades had worked for  
Stock as a school bus driver for five and one-half years. She has also done charter  
services. Ms. Blades held other positions in the past, including doing vehicle  
inspections and part-time dispatcher.  
IV  
INDUSTRY  
For more than 100 years, buses (now public passenger vehicles) have  
[46]  
been regulated in Nova Scotia. When the trucking industry was deregulated in Nova  
Scotia in 1994 and the bus industry in other provinces, the Legislature did not do so for  
these vehicles.  
[47]  
This overview relates to those that are in the business of carrying people  
on the highways and providing public passenger transportation, like Stock and the other  
licensed motor carriers in the Province. It does not address an individual who privately  
owns one of these vehicles and uses it as a trailer.  
[48]  
In numerous decisions the Board has noted the importance of these  
services to the public. These include the line-run services (regular route) and tourism  
as noted below:  
[16]  
The public’s interest in the Industry includes the important line-run services used  
to transport people, many on limited incomes, to medical appointments, school, work,  
and to visit loved ones and friends. It also provides parcel express services, important to  
individuals, as well as rural businesses and health services. The public’s interest in  
charter transportation services includes the tourism industry, which is significant to Nova  
Scotia’s economy. The Ivany Report (“The Report of the Nova Scotia Commission on  
Building Our New Economy, February 2014”) stated at p.19, amongst other references,  
the following:  
Geographic and economic realities dictate that Nova Scotia’s rural  
communities, like rural areas everywhere, will continue to rely heavily on  
sectors like tourism, forestry, fisheries and agriculture, and on production  
from renewable and non-renewable natural resources.  
Document: 259021  
 
- 16 -  
[17]  
Consequently, on a macro level the services are important to everyone in the  
Province and, on a micro level, are important to those either utilizing the services  
personally, or those operating ancillary businesses serving tourists.  
[Motor Carrier Industry (Re), 2015 NSUARB 33]  
[49]  
Nova Scotia has a relatively small population scattered throughout the  
Province, except in the Halifax and Sydney areas. Capital costs for the Industry are  
high. For example, a highway motor coach costs in excess of $500,000 per vehicle.  
Unlike some other provinces, motor carriers investing in the Industry in Nova Scotia are  
not provided with grants, subsidies, and/or rebates to assist them in providing these  
services, except those operating under rural community transportation programs.  
[50]  
To ensure there are safe, quality and sustainable motor carrier  
transportation services in the Province, the MC Act regulates most aspects of the  
Industry, in particular, safety, licensing, inspection of vehicles, compliance and  
enforcement.  
[51]  
Under the Federal Government Motor Vehicle Transport Act, a person  
wanting to have authority to operate extra-provincial transportation services must  
receive a license under the same licensing regime that exists in the Province.  
Therefore, the MC Act also applies to licenses under the MVT Act ss. 5 and 6.  
[52]  
No motor carrier is permitted to operate these vehicles without a license or  
to operate them not in accordance with the license. Section 7 of the Act reads:  
License and compliance required  
7
(1)  
Except as herein provided, no person, either as principal or by an agent  
or employee, shall operate a public passenger vehicle upon a highway within the  
Province  
(a) without holding a license issued by the Board allowing the vehicle to be so  
operated; or  
(b) in a manner, at a place or for a purpose that is not authorized by the terms of  
his license.  
Document: 259021  
- 17 -  
(2)  
No motor carrier shall operate a public passenger vehicle under the  
license issued to him other than a public passenger vehicle designated in such license.  
[53]  
[54]  
Section 4 of the MVT Act states the same:  
Operation without licence prohibited  
4
Where in any province a licence is, by the law of the province, required for the  
operation of a local bus undertaking, no person shall operate an extra-provincial bus  
undertaking in that province except under and in accordance with a licence issued under  
the authority of this Act.  
A person must operate in accordance with the Acts, orders, rules,  
regulations, schedules, and its license; s.7 and 22. Failure to do so constitutes  
sufficient cause for remedies including cancellation. Section 22 reads:  
Failure to comply  
22  
A motor carrier shall operate and furnish service in conformity with the license  
issued to him and in conformity with this Act and all orders, rules, regulations and  
schedules made hereunder, and the failure of a motor carrier so to conform shall, in  
addition to constituting an offence against this Act, be good and sufficient cause for the  
suspension or cancellation or both by the Board of the license issued to the motor carrier,  
or for the suspension or cancellation by the Board of part of the license or of any  
authorization issued to the motor carrier.  
[55]  
This language is restated on the front page of every license and  
references the applicable statute. For the MC Licenses, it reads:  
Stock Transportation Ltd.  
51 Frazee Ave  
Dartmouth, NS B3B 1Z4  
All services shall be furnished in accordance with this License, the Motor Carrier Act and  
Regulations.  
[Exhibit, S-1 to S-4]  
[56]  
Immediately following the above, the Licenses reference the failure to  
operate accordingly:  
Failure to operate in accordance with this license, the Act and Regulations shall be good  
and sufficient cause for the Board to amend, suspend or cancel this License in addition to  
any prosecution.  
[Exhibit, S-1 to S-4]  
[57]  
Safety is paramount. These are the largest passenger vehicles on the  
highway. The school bus may carry up to 76 students. A highway motor coach may  
Document: 259021  
- 18 -  
carry 58 adults. Articulated coaches are larger. Generally, these vehicles do not have  
seatbelts. An accident with one of them can cause serious injury or death to those  
travelling in them as well as any others it hits travelling on the highway, such as a family  
in a small car.  
[58]  
In addition to drivers having the proper license to operate the vehicle,  
there are both federal and provincial comprehensive regulations setting the maximum  
number of hours drivers are permitted to be on duty, drive the vehicle, and minimum  
rest periods per day and per work cycles.  
[59]  
Under the MVT Act, are the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service  
Regulations (Drivers Regulations). For transportation solely within the Province, the  
Motor Vehicle Act R.S., c. 293, s. 1., applies to the MC Act pursuant to s. 4. Under the  
Motor Vehicle Act are the Commercial Vehicle Drivers’ Hours of Service Regulations  
(Nova Scotia Regulations). Both of these Regulations are similar in nature, but not  
identical.  
[60]  
It is the Drivers Regulations under the MVT Act that are applicable in this  
case and, therefore, the following is a general review. Drivers are not permitted to  
operate these vehicles after having been on duty for 14 hours (s. 12(2)), unless rotating  
with other drivers, which extends it to 16 hours.  
[61]  
No one is permitted to request or allow a driver to operate one of the  
vehicles beyond that time period. Drivers Regulation 12(2) reads:  
Daily Driving and On-duty Time  
12(2) No motor carrier shall request, require or allow a driver to drive and no driver shall  
drive after the driver has accumulated 14 hours of on-duty time in a day.  
Document: 259021  
- 19 -  
[62]  
Drivers are required to keep daily logs noting each hour they are on duty,  
driving, or resting, regardless of the reason for the movement. No motor carrier can  
request, require or allow any person to enter inaccurate information into the daily log or  
to falsify it (86(2)). The logs must be maintained by the motor carrier for six months,  
along with supporting documentation (85(3)(b). The latter is defined as any document  
to assess compliance with the regulations. In the Nova Scotia Regulations supporting  
documents is defined as:  
“supporting document” means a document or information that is recorded or stored by  
any means and that is required by the director or an inspector to assess compliance with  
these regulations, and includes fuel receipts, bills of lading, shipping documents and  
accommodation receipts.  
[63]  
Drivers Regulations require the production of the daily log books,  
supporting documents and other relevant records requested by an Inspector (99(1)):  
99 (1) A motor carrier shall, during business hours, at the request of an inspector,  
immediately make available for inspection at a place specified by the inspector daily logs,  
supporting documents and other relevant records as well as any permit a driver may be  
driving under or have been driving under during the period for which the inspector makes  
the request for the documents.  
[64]  
The vehicles are thoroughly inspected twice a year. An Inspector can also  
require the vehicle for a random or roadside check.  
[65]  
Pursuant to s. 34 of the MC Act, the Inspectors are authorized to enforce  
the provisions of the Act and the Regulations pertaining to the conduct of the motor  
carrier, take necessary measures to prevent the operation of a vehicle by the motor  
carrier not complying with the terms and conditions of the Act, and any other duties  
given by the Minister. A person may not resist or willfully obstruct an Inspector in the  
execution of their duties or the exercise of their powers under this Act or Regulation (s.  
35(2)).  
Document: 259021  
- 20 -  
[66]  
To ensure there is safe, quality, sustainable motor transportation services  
in the Province, the MC Act directs the Board to license and administer the legislation to  
achieve those goals.  
[67]  
In determining whether a person should receive and/or maintain their  
license, quality and safety are paramount. The Board is to consider whether the motor  
carrier has the fitness, willingness, and ability to provide quality permanent, and proper  
service (s. 13(c)).  
[68]  
Sustainability is also an important component of the licensing provisions.  
This is accomplished by the Board determining the area, the size, type of vehicles,  
number of vehicles, and the type of service the motor carrier is permitted to do. Every  
license is restricted by certain terms and conditions (s. 16). The service component is  
like a seller’s territory.  
[69]  
If there are too many vehicles in an area there will not be sufficient  
revenue generated to sustain the services. Consequently, the Act requires the Board to  
determine whether licensing further vehicles in a particular area will cause an excess of  
equipment. The Board is also to take into consideration whether the Applicant has  
complied with its License, which also includes all Acts and Regulations (s. 13(a)).  
[70]  
The Board can also take into consideration public interest and any other  
matter that is relevant. These are set out in s. 13, which reads as follows:  
Factors Considered  
13  
Upon an application for a license for the operation of a public passenger vehicle  
or for approval of the sale, assignment, lease or transfer of such a license, the Board may  
take into consideration  
(a) any objection to the application made by any person already providing  
transport facilities whether by highway, water, air or rail, on the routes or between the  
places which the applicant intends to serve, on the ground that suitable facilities are, or, if  
Document: 259021  
- 21 -  
the license were issued, would be in excess of requirements, or on the ground that any of  
the conditions of any other license held by the applicant have not been complied with;  
(b) the general effect on other transport service, and any public interest that may  
be affected by the issue of the license or the granting of the approval;  
(c) the quality and permanence of the service to be offered by the applicant and  
the fitness, willingness and ability of the applicant to provide proper service;  
(ca) the impact the issue of the license or the granting of the approval would  
have on regular route public passenger service;  
(d) any other matter that, in the opinion of the Board, is relevant or material to the  
application.  
[71]  
The Board must also set rates (s. 27(1)(c)) that are sufficient to cover the  
costs of providing the services and a small profit. Rates are generally the greater of the  
number of kilometers travelled or time. Kilometers include those with passengers (live)  
and those without (deadhead). The latter is from the company’s equipment point,  
usually its place of business. The kilometers a vehicle travels to pick up a charter group  
may be a significant number. Time is usually by hour during a one day charter and daily  
for a multi-day trip. Charges that do not cover the costs of operating this service can be  
predatory and affect the carriers, the Industry, and ultimately impact or reduce the  
services to the public.  
[72]  
If a carrier wishes to operate the vehicles for services not on its license, it  
can apply to the Board to amend its license to include them (s. 12), or apply for a trip  
permit or temporary authority under s. 9.  
[73]  
To be given a license is a privilege and does not provide any perpetual  
rights, s. 10(1).  
[74]  
The Board has been granted the power to do any act necessary and  
advisable for the effective exercise of its power in the administration of the Act and  
Regulations (s. 27(1)(e)) and powers to enforce compliance (s. 29).  
Document: 259021  
- 22 -  
[75]  
If a motor carrier fails to operate in accordance with the Act, it is  
considered good and sufficient cause for the cancellation, amendment and/or  
suspension of its Licenses (s. 22) as well as constituting an offence under the Act and  
liable to a penalty on the first offence between $250 and $5,000 or any subsequent  
offence between $500 and $5,000 (s. 37).  
V
FACTS  
As one of Stock’s arguments is that it did not know the laws and  
[76]  
regulations affecting its services and operations under the Act, the Board begins with  
Stock’s knowledge and then reviews the facts from 2009 when Mr. Phinney became its  
Regional Manager. The Board reviews the facts to the Notice of Show Cause and  
those facts that became known during this proceeding. For the latter, some of the facts  
and events are reviewed in this section, but many are noted under the specific alleged  
breaches/charges in the Findings section. At the end of this section is a Timeline of the  
pertinent events.  
1.  
Stock and Knowledge  
[77]  
Stock is the Canadian subsidiary of the National Express Company  
(NEC), which is one of the largest bus companies in the world. It has revenues in  
excess of one billion dollars per year. Mr. Phinney is the Regional Manager for Stock’s  
offices for Alberta and Nova Scotia. Stock has approximately 1,600 employees and  
1,300 vehicles in Canada, and in Nova Scotia approximately 600 employees and 500  
vehicles. It is the largest motor carrier in Nova Scotia. Ninety-eight percent (98%) of its  
work is school bus services.  
Document: 259021  
   
- 23 -  
[78]  
In closing arguments, Stock’s counsel (also Stock) acknowledged Stock is  
a motor carrier in the business of transporting people in passenger vehicles for gain.  
Witnesses had testified this was their understanding of Stock’s business, including Mr.  
MacEachern (Transcript, pp. 102-103).  
[79]  
Although Mr. Phinney acknowledged Stock used legal counsel before the  
Board including for its Licenses, transfer of Perrry Rand’s Licenses, prior 2015  
Amendment Application and this Show Cause hearing, he stated he lacked knowledge  
of the information pertinent to the operation of these vehicles and services as exhibited  
by his testimony below.  
[80]  
Mr. Phinney “breezed over” the Motor Carrier Act and Regulations:  
The Chair:  
And have you had occasion to read the Motor Carrier Act and  
Regulations when you first came here?  
Mr. Phinney:  
I breezed over it, yes.  
[Transcript, February 1, 2017, p. 637]  
[81]  
Mr. Phinney stated he did not know drivers were on duty if not resting in a  
sleeper berth until the August 2016 trip.  
[82]  
Mr. Phinney did not know about the “tagging” of licenses:  
The Chair:  
Do you know anything about tagging?  
Mr. Phinney:  
The Chair:  
Pardon me?  
Tagging of licences?  
No.  
Mr. Phinney:  
[ibid, p. 646]  
[83]  
Mr. Phinney testified he had never heard of a temporary license:  
Mr. Scott:  
There was reference yesterday made by Ms. Aisthorpe that you could  
have gotten some sort of temporary licence or something to deal with the  
same issue that you were you trying to address with either the lease or  
doing it by free. Before yesterday, have you ever heard of that?  
Document: 259021  
- 24 -  
Mr. Phinney:  
No, I have not.  
[ibid, p. 615]  
[84]  
On re-examination, Board counsel introduced a Temporary Authority (TA)  
Application submitted by Stock in 2015 to use its four HMCs for cruise ship services  
[Exhibit S-21]. It was signed by Dwight Keeping, who is Stock’s Safety Manager in  
Stock’s executive offices. Mr. Phinney testified he was not aware of the TA Application.  
A letter from the Board dated September 28, 2015, denied the TA. Mr. Phinney stated  
that was the first time he saw the letter.  
[85]  
Mr. Phinney held the erroneous views that a motor carrier would be  
automatically granted authority on its license to service a contract awarded under a  
public tender (Tender or Request for Proposal (RFP)), without a public hearing, and the  
carrier could charge any amount of money, including zero. He was not told that by  
anyone from the Board nor did he read it in a decision of the Board.  
Mr. Outhouse: Now, I just want to ask you again, to be clear, and I know that you have  
stated you felt that because this was a tender request, as it’s called here,  
that you could bid to Newbridge whatever price you like; you could have  
bid zero, you could have bid $10; you could have done whatever you  
like?  
Mr. Phinney:  
That’s -- yes.  
[ibid, p. 560]  
Mr. Outhouse: Sorry; if there was an RFP you wouldn’t need a licence?  
Mr. Phinney:  
That if it was an RFP licence, that our licence would be granted under  
the RFP. That’s what we were told during that time.  
Mr. Outhouse: But you were never told that by the Board?  
Mr. Phinney: No, sir.  
Mr. Outhouse: And that never appeared in any decision of the Board.  
Mr. Phinney: Again, I don’t even recall reading the decision by the Board, sir.  
[ibid, pp. 632-633]  
Document: 259021  
- 25 -  
[86]  
Regarding the Notice of Hearing dated June 2, 2012, provided to the  
Industry for the Board’s generic hearing regarding discounts, including contracts and  
Tenders/RFPs, Mr. Phinney stated he did not see this. He suspects no one else at  
Stock saw it either. He was not aware of the proceedings, nor did he read the Motor  
Carrier Industry (Re), 2015 NSUARB 33 () (Discount Decision):  
The Chair:  
Okay. Are you aware that the Board issued decisions in relation to  
discounts, and specifically contracts?  
Mr. Phinney:  
I am not aware, no.  
[ibid, p. 639]  
[87]  
Stock alleged lacking knowledge about invoicing for the HMC charter  
services, Mr. Phinney stated:  
Mr. Scott:  
Right. Was it your intention to charge for that?  
Mr. Phinney:  
We didn’t know -- that’s just our -- in our infancy, we didn’t know what  
we’re doing so we just left it as no.  
[ibid, p. 619]  
Stock’s Undertaking from its Amendment Application, Exhibit S-6 in this proceeding,  
showed numerous charter invoices. The Board notes invoicing does not differ by  
vehicle, only the rate varies.  
[88]  
Mr. Phinney stated he did not know how much a HMC is worth:  
Mr. Phinney:  
I have no idea; [$]150,000.  
[ibid, p. 577]  
[89]  
Regarding the Inspectors, without knowing their actual education  
background, Mr. Phinney acknowledged they inspect the mechanical aspects of the  
buses.  
[90]  
He does not regularly read the Board’s Decisions:  
The Chair:  
So do you regularly read any of the decisions of the Board on issues like  
this?  
Document: 259021  
- 26 -  
Mr. Phinney:  
I would be embarrassed to say that I do. No, I don’t.  
[ibid, p. 640]  
[91]  
Mr. Phinney did not recall reading the Decision of its Amendment  
Application, Stock Decision 2016 NSUARB 16:  
Mr. Outhouse: And with respect to that application, you said that you attended the  
hearing.  
Mr. Phinney:  
Mr. Outhouse: And you read the decision?  
Mr. Phinney: I may have breezed over it, yes.  
Yes, I did.  
Mr. Outhouse: But there was a settlement agreement that hearing, wasn’t there,  
between you and the other carrier with respect to the use of the vehicles.  
Mr. Phinney:  
I do believe -- you want to ---  
Mr. Outhouse: I will.  
Mr. Outhouse: I’m just going to read you a couple of passages from the decision and  
see ---  
Mr. Phinney:  
Sure.  
Mr. Outhouse: --- if you read them and are familiar with them.  
This is about the settlement agreement, it says:  
“The parties agreed to very strict use of the highway motor  
coaches. Without the agreement, the Board would not have  
granted any authorization for the use of these highway motor  
coaches.” (As read)  
Do you remember that statement?  
Mr. Phinney:  
No, I don’t.  
Mr. Phinney:  
Again, I don’t even recall reading the decision by the Board, sir.  
Mr. Outhouse: Well, I’ll take you to another passage from it. After laying out the  
restrictions on the licence in detail as we reviewed them earlier this  
morning ---  
Mr. Phinney:  
Yeah.  
Document: 259021  
- 27 -  
Mr. Outhouse: --- the Board referred to the rates that you were proposing; that is, your  
company was proposing to charge for the service and it said this:  
“After careful consideration, and with the limited evidence  
provided by Stock in this case, the Board finds its proposed rates  
in general are too low and potentially predatory.  
Furthermore, the Board finds Stock failed to show the proposed  
rates were fair and reasonable for the services it was providing.  
The Board, therefore, sets the rates outlined in this decision.” (As  
read)  
So your proposed rates the Board found that they were too low, perhaps  
even predatory, and set different rates; correct?  
Mr. Phinney:  
Mr. Outhouse: You don’t recall that.  
The Board said this in its decision:  
I don’t recall.  
“As there is no need for these HMC vehicles in an unrestricted  
charter market in Nova Scotia, and considering the negative  
impact they would have on the industry, an expansion of the  
HMC authority beyond the above restrictions would not be  
permitted.” (As read)  
Do you recall that?  
Mr. Phinney:  
No, sir. [Emphasis added]  
[ibid, pp. 629-635]  
[92]  
The Board’s Order from the Stock Decision specifically referenced  
contracts Stock had on its Licenses that were to be removed and had to proceed  
through the public hearing process. These included contracts with Capital Health and  
Public Works. When asked about this Order, Mr. Phinney stated he did not understand  
it, but, once again, stated he ‘breezed through it’.  
2.  
Before Notice of Show Cause  
[93]  
When Mr. Phinney became Stock’s Regional Manager in 2009, the  
economic downturn or the Great Recession, as described in the Ivany Report (The  
Report on the Nova Scotia Commission on Building Our New Economy, February 2014)  
Document: 259021  
 
- 28 -  
had just begun in 2008. This affected the motor carrier Industry in Nova Scotia. As  
carriers requested permission from the Board to grant larger discounts and their year-  
end financial statements showed little or no profit margins, the Board held a generic  
hearing on discounts. The Notice was published in the Royal Gazette on March 7,  
2014. The Board engaged an economist, Michael Gardner, of Gardner Pinfold  
Consulting Inc., to address various issues, including the impact of discounting methods  
on the sustainability of the Industry, Discount Decision at paras. 30 to 33, 34, 38 to 39.  
[94]  
When the initial hearing was adjourned, the Board issued an interim  
Discount Decision, 2013 NSUARB 21 , on January 2, 2013. The Board  
determined all contracts seeking to charge below the motor carrier’s licensed rates,  
including those resulting from a Tender or RFP, had to advance through the MC Act  
public hearing application process and subject to an analysis under s. 13. In the  
interim, no one would be licensed to provide a discount of more than 20% below the  
rates set by the Board, subject to any case specific evidence the Board found would  
justify a variation.  
[95]  
On December 3, 2013, the Board approved the transfer of Perry Rand  
Licenses to Stock. These are the two Licenses that are the subject of this Show Cause  
proceeding.  
[96]  
The Discount Review hearings and submissions took place in 2014 with  
the Board issuing its Decision on February 24, 2015. The Board amongst other things  
set the following minimum rates for all HMCs:  
Daily Rate Hourly Rate Kilometre Live  
Deadhead  
Layover  
Rate  
2015  
2016  
2017  
$1,150  
$1,200  
$1,250  
$115  
$120  
$125  
$2.60  
$2.70  
$2.85  
$2.35  
$2.45  
$2.55  
$700  
$725  
$750  
Document: 259021  
- 29 -  
Plus applicable taxes.  
[97]  
On April 10, 2015, Stock applied to the Board to amend these Licenses to,  
amongst other things, change various charter rates, add four highway motor coaches to  
its charter services and set HMC rates. The 2015 Applications were opposed by  
virtually all licensed motor carriers in the Province operating HMCs and by another  
operating vehicles with 36 seats or more.  
[98]  
The Board’s Decision of these Applications is Stock 2016 NSUARB 16. In  
this section it is generally referred to as the Decision, otherwise it is referenced as the  
Stock Decision.  
[99]  
The background information included that Stock had approximately 600  
employees in Nova Scotia, 3,200 in Canada and 42,000 worldwide. Ninety-eight  
percent (98%) of its services in Nova Scotia are school bus services. It operates  
approximately 500 school buses, 13 mini-coaches, semi-coaches and activity buses  
(paras. 16 and 17).  
[100]  
Stock is one of many companies operating around the world under the  
ownership of the NEC. Stock’s sister company in the United States is Durham Schools.  
An inter-company bulletin from NEC noted the four HMC vehicles were available. Mr.  
Phinney said they were already owned by NEC; therefore, they were essentially paid  
for. Consequently, Stock did not care if these HMCs made money (paras. 19-21).  
[101]  
The Decision summarizes Mr. Phinney’s testimony that, as part of Stock’s  
responses to RFP, Stock did, and would in the future, include the HMCs as an added  
benefit for School Boards (para. 22).  
[102]  
The Decision notes Mr. Phinney acknowledged Stock’s HMC could have a  
significant negative impact on the other motor carriers (para. 31).  
Document: 259021  
- 30 -  
[103]  
At the close of Stock’s evidence, the parties reached an Agreement  
regarding the use of the HMCs. Stock, therefore, requested its Applications be  
amended to adopt the Agreement which restricted the use of its HMCs to solely  
providing overflow cruise ship services under contract with a licensed motor carrier and  
as the last vehicles to be used for such services, with a seating capacity of more than  
36 seats. They could not be used for any other services, including, but not limited to,  
schools, charters and tours (paras. 52-61).  
[104]  
This meant the vehicles could only be used under the MC License 595  
and only within the Province. Consequently, Stock was no longer requesting that  
portion of its XP License Amendment Application to authorize the use of the HMCs for  
extra-provincial transportation movements.  
[105]  
As Stock’s representatives were unsure whether it was properly charging  
its deadhead rates for charter services, it gave an Undertaking to provide a range of  
charter invoices (Charter Undertaking).  
[106]  
Prior to Stock completing the Charter Undertakings, the Board issued its  
Decision regarding deadhead charges on November 24, 2015, (Nova Scotia) Motor  
Carrier Industry (Re), 2015 NSUARB 246 (Can LII) (Deadhead Decision). The Board  
confirmed there would be no change to the requirement for motor carriers to charge  
their licensed deadhead rates for all kilometers their vehicles travelled without  
passengers from and to the carrier’s equipment point, before and after the  
transportation services with its charter passengers.  
[107]  
After Stock substantially completed the Charter Undertaking, the Board  
issued the Stock Decision on February 26, 2016. The Board amended many of Stock’s  
Document: 259021  
- 31 -  
charter rates on both Licenses effective immediately, addressed its contract services,  
and decided its MC License 595 would not be amended to add the HMCs and overflow  
cruise ship services until there was full compliance with the Undertaking (paras. 8, 32,  
and 163).  
[108]  
In the Decision, the Board permitted Stock’s amendment requests and  
adopted the Agreement with modifications. The Board’s reasons included some  
background information and an analysis of the evidence and Agreement. This included  
information about sustainability of motor carrier services for the public, some of the  
unique factors affecting it in Nova Scotia, and the MC Act achieving this through the  
Board’s licensing of all aspects of the Industry including the motor carriers, the number  
and types/sizes of vehicles, location and areas of services, and rates (74-83). For the  
latter, it stated at para. 83 as follows:  
[83]  
Rates need to be sufficient to recover the cost of providing the service with a  
profit and are essential for the repair and replacement of vehicles; important for safe,  
quality services; sustainability; and permanence of the service; as noted in s.13(c) of the  
MC Act. Insufficient rates can be predatory, result in an unhealthy Industry, a loss of  
carriers, and, ultimately, a loss of services for the public, Deadhead Decision.  
[109]  
The Decision reviewed the Board’s recent Discount and Deadhead  
Decisions. It also summarized the Board’s adoption of the expert opinions of Mr.  
Gardner including that all forms of discounting are a zero-sum gain; that is, work  
attained by one carrier through discounts was merely taking work from another motor  
carrier; reduced the carriers’ revenues; and in the long term, would impact the  
sustainability of the motor carriers and therefore, these transportation services to the  
public (paras. 84-95).  
[110]  
The Stock Decision outlined the Board’s review of all evidence and s. 13  
considerations and found that, but for the Agreement, Stock would not have been  
Document: 259021  
- 32 -  
granted the amendments to its Licenses to use these four HMCs for numerous reasons.  
One in particular was that there would be an excess of equipment in the Province. The  
Board’s comments included the following:  
[102] At the time the Agreement was reached between the parties, Stock had  
presented all of its evidence to the Board and had closed its case. To fully appreciate  
this Decision, it is important to note, the Board finds Stock failed to prove the provisions  
of s.13 of the MC Act for its initial Applications seeking unrestricted use of these highway  
motor coaches for all charters. In particular, Stock had failed to prove there was a need  
for four (4) additional HMCs in the Province, and as such, these vehicles would result in  
an excess of equipment if its initial proposal of unrestricted amendments to the licenses  
were granted. …  
[108] The restrictions agreed to by the parties are very important for the sustainability  
of the licensed carriers in the Province and, therefore, are critical to the Board’s approval  
of the use of these highway motor coaches for the reasons noted below.  
[109] The sustainability of the existing licensed carriers who have already made the  
investment of funds, time and energy into vehicles currently servicing the cruise ship  
industry in the Province, is pivotal to this case. To achieve their sustainability, the Board  
will remain diligent in its regulation of the types and number of vehicles, and their rates,  
as the Industry moves forward from the prior poor economic years until their financial  
health improves. This will require, for example, seeing an increase in the utilization of the  
existing carrier’s licensed fleets and/or approving license expansion requests, before the  
Board approves adding other vehicles into various market areas. This is particularly  
important for those existing licensed carriers who have experienced the most significant  
financial difficulties due to the negative effects of the various factors noted above,  
including discounts and not charging deadhead rates. Many are smaller carriers and/or  
in rural communities.  
[110] May to November are the main months for the licensed carriers’ short tourism  
season in Nova Scotia. As noted above, 30% of Coach’s annual revenues are generated  
from September and October alone. This is when all carriers have to make their money  
or “get it done”. Consequently, the licensed carriers require both the charter and cruise  
ship work during those months to be sustainable.  
[111] The most critical components of these agreed restrictions are that they are  
designed not to impact this existing charter or cruise ship work which all licensed carriers  
rely on.  
[112] Stock is prohibited from doing any charter work for anyone, including for its  
contracted School Boards, as they are currently using the existing licensed carriers for  
their HMC needs.  
[113] Stock is also not permitted to do any cruise ship work if any of the licensed  
carriers have equipment available. Under this restriction, it includes vehicles beyond the  
HMC to those with a seating capacity of 36 passengers or more, to address the other  
vehicles of carriers, like Mac Tours, that are used by Absolute for cruise ship services.  
Document: 259021  
- 33 -  
[111]  
The Board emphasized how important strict adherence to these  
restrictions were to the success of this type of model:  
[119] Strict adherence to the above by Stock, and other carrier’s subcontracting its  
services, will be very important to the success of this model agreed to by the carriers.  
[112]  
The Board noted the HMCs were not sustainable with the small amount of  
overflow cruise ship work. The Board, therefore, noted that if Stock determined it no  
longer wanted to provide the overflow cruise ship services with these restrictions, then  
Stock could request an abandonment of its authority to operate its HMCs:  
[122] Stock knows these highway motor coaches are not sustainable with their  
authority in Nova Scotia alone, has agreed to these restrictive terms and, therefore, has  
assumed the risks of embarking on this venture. As noted above, Stock has also used  
these vehicles in New Brunswick.  
[123] If Stock determines it no longer wants to provide the services with these  
restrictions, then Stock may request the abandonment of its authority to operate these  
highway motor coaches. As noted above, without these restrictions, s.13 of the Act is not  
met, there is an excess of equipment, and the sustainability of the Industry is impacted.  
[113]  
Regarding Stock’s requests to amend various charter rates for other  
vehicles, in general, the Board found the proposed rates were too low and could  
negatively impact the Industry:  
[144] Rates are a very important component of the Board’s regulation of the Industry.  
As also referenced above, for any agreement reached between the parties, the Board  
has to consider the broader implications on the Industry as a whole. The Board has  
given the rates very careful consideration. In summary, based on the very limited  
information from Stock, the Board finds its rates are too low and can negatively impact  
the Industry.  
[114]  
[115]  
The Board, therefore, set specific charter rates.  
A separate section was devoted to contracts where the Board referenced  
its Interim Discount Decision, eliminated Stock’s open contract authority and its  
contracts that had expired. It further noted that all renewals or new contracts had to  
proceed through the MC Act public hearing process and were subject to a s. 13  
analysis.  
Document: 259021  
- 34 -  
[116]  
As Board counsel noted in its closing submission, all of the above was  
summarized in the Conclusion to the Board’s Decision which reads:  
[181] Stock initially applied to amend its Licenses to operate four highway motor  
coaches for any type of charter, add HMC rates, and revise charter rates in its three other  
vehicle classifications.  
[182] The parties agreed to very strict use of the highway motor coaches. Without the  
Agreement, the Board would not have granted any authorization for the use of these  
highway motor coaches. The Board finds that in relation to its initial Applications, Stock  
failed to prove the requirements of s.13, in particular, it failed to show there was an  
unrestricted need for these vehicles.  
[183] The goal of the MC Act is to provide safe, quality transportation services  
throughout the Province. The Board finds that the Industry, coming from a recession and  
discounting methods, remains unhealthy and under-revenued. There is an excess of  
vehicles in the Province. Further unrestricted licensed vehicles for all charters would  
have a negative impact on the licensed carriers, which in turn encumbers achieving the  
objects of the MC Act.  
[184] With the restrictions and modifications, the Board approves the addition of four  
highway motor coaches and the deletion of the two 20 passenger mini-coaches and two  
39 passenger deluxe semi-coaches on its MC License and the deletion of the latter two  
vehicles and one 28 passenger mini-coach on its XP License. The highway motor  
coaches are restricted to:  
(a)  
Use for cruise ship services only and may not be used for any other service,  
including but not restricted to schools, charters and tours;  
(b)  
(c)  
(d)  
Between the months from May to November;  
From any port in the Province;  
Only under subcontract to another licensed carrier for the cruise ship work,  
such that Stock may not contact and/or contract with a cruise ship company;  
and  
(e)  
Used as a last resort, when there are no other vehicles available with a  
seating capacity of 36 seats or greater, after compliance with the Notification  
Chart below:  
Operator of Last Resort for Cruise Ship Services  
Charter Period  
Notification Date  
Subcontract Date  
May 1 June 30  
July 1 Aug. 31  
Sept. 1 Oct. 31  
Nov. 1  
Apr. 1  
June 1  
Aug. 1  
Oct 1  
Apr. 16  
June 16  
Aug. 16  
Oct. 16  
(f)  
Notification must be:  
(i)  
Provided to all licensed carriers which operate vehicles with 36 seats  
or greater;  
Document: 259021  
- 35 -  
(ii)  
The same dates must be provided to all applicable carriers; and  
A copy of the notification and responses are to be filed with the MCD.  
(iii)  
[185] After careful consideration, and with the limited evidence provided by Stock in  
this case, the Board finds its proposed rates, in general, are too low and potentially  
predatory. Furthermore, the Board finds Stock failed to show the proposed rates were  
fair and reasonable for the services it was providing. The Board, therefore, set the rates  
as outlined in the Decision.  
[186] With the various restrictions on the use of the HMCs, in particular to not operate  
charters other than for cruise ship services as the last carrier, and their rates as set by  
the Board, the Board finds s.13 is satisfied by enabling the servicing of cruise ship  
passengers without negatively impacting the Motor Carrier Industry.  
[187] The Board also finds the amount of work available to these highway motor  
coaches in Nova Scotia alone, is not sufficient to sustain them. The Board notes Stock  
has also used these vehicles in New Brunswick. However, if Stock determines it does  
not wish to operate these vehicles under the terms set by this Decision, then Stock  
should seek to abandon their use. As there is no need for these HMC vehicles in an  
unrestricted charter market in Nova Scotia, and considering the negative impact they  
would have on the Industry, an expansion of the HMC authority beyond the above  
restrictions would not be permitted.  
[188] The rates for Stock’s activity buses, semi-coaches and mini-coaches are  
effective immediately. Upon Stock complying with its Undertaking and the Board’s  
subsequent review, Stock’s Schedule E(1) in its Licenses shall remove the requisite mini-  
coaches and semi-coaches and add four highway motor coaches pursuant to the service  
authorization and rates as outlined in this Decision. The Board retains jurisdiction to  
complete this and to correct and resolve the contract services in Stock’s Licenses.  
[117]  
On March 2, 2016, within four days of the Stock Decision and the Board  
adopting Stock’s agreement and amendment requests to prohibit the use of its HMC for  
school bus services, Stock contacted Ms. Aisthorpe and asked her to add the HMCs to  
Stock’s Licenses for its contract with the Halifax Regional School Board.  
[118]  
Ms. Aisthorpe stated school bus services must be operated by school  
buses D250 (or specific passenger cars). The Board notes the former have numerous  
requirements such as being painted yellow, back door exit, “stop” arm. School buses  
are authorized to provide services to and from school and for extra-curricular activities  
sanctioned by the specific school board. Some school buses may also be licensed for  
charter services.  
Document: 259021  
- 36 -  
[119]  
A series of email communications between herself and Mr. Phinney  
ensued. On March 3, 2016, Ms. Aisthorpe emailed Mr. Phinney confirming his inquiry  
and stated Stock’s HMCs could only be used for cruise ship services and not HRSB:  
Good afternoon Troy-  
In relation to your inquiry yesterday afternoon and subsequent to my reviewing the recent  
Board Decision in detail it would appear the [highway] motor coaches are restricted to  
"use for cruise ship services only and may not be used for any other service, including  
but not restricted to schools, charters and tours;". I note, additional restrictions also apply.  
As such, the coaches cannot be operated for HRSB co or extra-curricular activities.  
Please do not hesitate to contact me with related comments or questions; or, if additional  
information is desired.  
Best regards,  
[Exhibit S-5, Tab 3, p. 59]  
[120]  
Ms. Aisthorpe confirmed she quoted from the Stock Decision. Regarding  
her comment “I note, additional restrictions also apply.”, she was referencing the  
Board’s further restrictions including that the HMCs could only provide backup cruise  
ship services and outlined a process for determining its vehicles would be the last used.  
Furthermore, these restrictions are noted in Stock’s MC License 595 [Exhibit S-1, p. 22].  
[121]  
The MC License 595 also requires notifications be filed with the MCD.  
Ms. Aisthorpe testified while she was with the MCD, no such notifications for cruise  
services were filed.  
[122]  
Ms. Aisthorpe received a responding email from Mr. Phinney stating the  
use of the HMCs were part of Stock’s contract with HRSB, which meant its contract was  
now void. It would also have an impact on Stock’s new contract with HRSB.  
Document: 259021  
- 37 -  
[123]  
Ms. Aisthorpe responded to Mr. Phinney by email dated March 4, 2016,  
stating school services only permit the use of D250 school buses (or specific passenger  
cars). HMCs are not permitted to operate school bus services. Her email reads:  
Troy-  
Based on the Board Decision and restrictions indicated the coaches cannot be operated  
for HRSB co or extra curricular activities; the contract terms and conditions for the RFP  
submission should have been contingent upon receiving Board approval to operate.  
The Decision explicitly states "Stock is prohibited from doing any charter work for anyone,  
including for its contracted School Boards, as they are currently using the existing  
licensed carriers for their HMC needs." (Board Decision, M06816 & M06817; p. 34, para  
[112])  
The current license for HRSB contract school service (i.e. to & from; and, co or extra-  
curricular) would permit the use of authorized D250 school buses or any exempted  
vehicles under Board regulation 51A (e.g. passenger car when operated in the capacity  
of a school bus for the transportation of a pupil).  
Please do not hesitate to contact me with related comments or questions; or, if additional  
information is required.  
Best regards,  
Natalie  
[ibid, p. 58]  
[124]  
Mr. Phinney’s responding email then requested the MCD add the HMCs to  
its school bus License for the Halifax Regional School Board (MC License 2714). Ms.  
Aisthorpe’s next email informed Mr. Phinney that could not be done. Rather, it required  
an Amendment Application to Stock’s License. While Ms. Aisthorpe was at the MCD,  
no subsequent Amendment Application was received.  
[125]  
Mr. Phinney’s emails constantly refer to RFPs and a carrier being able to  
charge what it wants and to have these added to its Licenses without going through the  
public hearing process. This was fully reviewed in the Board’s Interim Discount  
Decision released January 21, 2013. All contracts including those under public tender  
or RFPs had to advance through the MC Act’s public hearing process and are subject to  
Document: 259021  
- 38 -  
s. 13. This was again outlined in the Stock Decision under a separate section entitled  
“Contracts” and specifically addressed the contract services on Stock’s Licenses noting  
some were to be removed and others required applications to the Board for renewal. It  
quoted from the Interim Discount Review Order. Furthermore, the Order issued to  
Stock on March 23, 2016, stated its schedule of services required correction and  
completions. Ms. Aisthorpe then told Stock this again in the above email exchange.  
[126]  
After Stock fully complied with the Charter Undertakings, authorization to  
use the HMCs was granted by Order of the Board dated April 29, 2016, and added to  
Schedule F on its MC License 595. The latter reads:  
F(4) SPECIALTY IRREGULAR PUBLIC PASSENGER CHARTER SERVICE  
The highway motor coaches are restricted to the transportation of cruise ship passengers  
under subcontract to another licensed carrier in the Province of Nova Scotia from any  
port between May to November as a last resort, when there are no other licensed  
vehicles available with a seating capacity of 36 seats or greater, after compliance with the  
notification chart below:  
Charter Period  
Notification Date  
Subcontract Date  
May 1 June 30  
July 1 Aug. 31  
Sept. 1 Oct. 31  
Nov. 1  
Apr. 1  
June 1  
Aug. 1  
Oct 1  
Apr. 16  
June 16  
Aug. 16  
Oct. 16  
The highway motor coaches may not be used for any other services, including but not  
limited to, for schools, school children, charters, and tours; and are further subject to the  
terms and conditions of the License. [Emphasis added]  
Effective this 29th day of April, 2016.  
[Exhibit S-3, Schedule F]  
[127]  
The Charter Undertaking referenced Stock’s computer program. The  
materials provided with this response from Ms. Coldwell included the Trip ID (client),  
Invoice, Trip Name, Customer, Date, Itinerary, Start Time, End time, Vehicle Unit No.,  
Document: 259021  
- 39 -  
Depot, Fee, and Kilometers travelled for each movement of each vehicle providing  
charter services for the specified period.  
[128]  
Ms. Aisthorpe stated that of the four HMCs, only one was presented for  
inspection, stickered, and plated by the MCD. On May 18, 2016, the HMC was added  
to Schedule E(4) of the MC License 595 as:  
E(4) Total Plates: 1  
P01235  
56  
Motor Coach  
2005 MCI  
2M93JMPAX6W063250  
[ibid, Schedule E]  
[129]  
Ms. Aisthorpe testified that within a short time after the HMC was added to  
Stock’s License, the MCD received information Stock had used it to provide extra-  
provincial transportation services. She did not have any details of the movement. On  
June 7, 2016, Inspector Parker requested information about its movements. On June  
10, 2016, Ms. Aisthorpe sent a follow-up email to Mr. Phinney requesting detailed  
information. Her email reads:  
Good afternoon Troy-  
This email is sent in follow-up to Inspector Parker's request on June 7, 2016 for  
information in support of extra provincial transportation services provided by Stock  
Transportation Ltd.  
The Inspectors request was prompted by comments indicating the highway motor coach  
(VIN# 2M93JMPAX6W063250) recently inspected/stickered travelled to Quebec; possibly  
on two different occasions.  
Please provide corresponding documentation for each extra provincial transportation  
service provided.  
Documentation should include, but is not limited to:  
- Driver information (name, master#, contact phone#, etc.)  
- Driver Hours of Service (HOS) Log Book (i.e. outside 160 kms of home base)  
- Vehicle pre-trip sheets  
- Trip itinerary & contact (or, general details outlining the nature of the transportation  
offered)  
- Invoice issued (if applicable).  
Document: 259021  
- 40 -  
The information requested is intended to confirm vehicle use is in compliance with  
approved license terms and conditions; relevant Motor Carrier Act Section 22 included  
here for your reference:  
Failure to comply  
22 A motor carrier shall operate and furnish service in conformity with the license issued  
to him and in conformity with this Act and all orders, rules, regulations and schedules  
made hereunder, and the failure of a motor carrier so to conform shall, in addition to  
constituting an offence against this Act, be good and sufficient cause for the suspension  
or cancellation or both by the Board of the license issued to the motor carrier, or for the  
suspension or cancellation by the Board of part of the license or of any authorization  
issued to the motor carrier.  
Similar requests for supporting documentation are routinely made by the Inspectors; as  
accommodated by Motor Carrier Act Section 34(2). Excerpt included here for your  
reference:  
Inspector  
34 (1) The Minister may appoint a person or persons in the public service to act as  
inspector or inspectors under this Act.  
(2) The inspector or inspectors shall enforce the provisions of this Act and the regulations  
that pertain to the conduct of motor carriers and shall take all necessary measures under  
this Act to prevent the operation of any motor carrier without such motor carrier having  
first complied with the terms and provisions of this Act and the regulations, and shall  
perform such other duties as the Minister may from time to time determine.  
Please provide the requested information at latest by the end of the month, June 30,  
2016.  
Please do not hesitate to contact me with related comments or questions.  
Best regards, [Emphasis added]  
[Exhibit S-5, Tab 6, p. 71]  
[130]  
On the due date of June 30, 2016, Mr. Phinney replied as follows and  
asked Ms. Aisthorpe for the specific dates of the trips as this might speed up the  
process:  
Thank you for the email Natalie. I am still gather [ing] the information requested. I wish  
you could be more specific, do you have specific dates that you are looking for?  
I assure you that any movement of our coach was provided at no charge to any  
customer. If I could ask for an extension to next week I will provide what information we  
have. In the meantime if there are specific dates? It might speed up the process.  
I hope you can see to extend the time line.  
Thanks again, [Emphasis added]  
[ibid]  
Document: 259021  
- 41 -  
[131]  
On July 4, Ms. Aisthorpe responded, providing an extension to July 8,  
2016, and further informed Mr. Phinney that “Details on any extra-provincial charter  
tours are requested”.  
[132]  
information would be provided the following week due to personal circumstances.  
[133] Ms. Aisthorpe never received any information from Mr. Phinney about  
these trips before she left the MCD on October 18, 2016.  
[134] As to Mr. Phinney’s comment in his June 30, 2016, email that the services  
On July 8, Mr. Phinney sent an email apologizing for the delay and the  
are at no charge to any customer, Ms. Aisthorpe testified that Stock’s HMCs are public  
passenger vehicles and, therefore, are subject to the terms and conditions of their  
Licenses, including rates:  
Mr. Outhouse: Just turn to Mr. you don't have to turn. On page 71, you'll see Mr.  
Phinney's reply. And this is June 30th, the date he was to supply the  
information, tells you he's still gathering it and wishes you could be more  
specific what specific dates you were looking for.  
And then he says this:  
"I assure you that any movement of our coach was provided at no charge  
to any customer." (As read)  
He then asks for an extension of a week to provide the information. In  
the meantime, he asks you if you've got any specific dates that might  
speed up the process.  
First of all, what's your -- what was your reaction to the free of -- "Was  
provided at no charge to any customer"?  
Ms. Aisthorpe: So in that context, the highway motor coach is a motor -- a public  
passenger vehicle. It's P plated; it's fully regulated, so it would be subject  
to the terms and approval of the licence that was granted.  
So in this context, my email has been supportive and it requests by the  
inspector for further information, so typically, that's provided in routine  
course through industry inquiries as to operation of the vehicle.  
Whether it was provided for free or not, the motor coach would be  
subject to the licence terms, which include rates.  
[Transcript, January 30, 2017, pp. 186-187]  
Document: 259021  
- 42 -  
[135]  
Ms. Aisthorpe and Mr. Penney testified the MCD has permitted carriers  
once or twice a year to provide free services to legitimate charities, like the Canadian  
Wish Foundation, where the drivers have donated their time. There is nothing in writing.  
It is an enforcement practice. She noted some carriers obtain temporary authorities or  
trip permits for their charitable work. Ms. Aisthorpe testified she had discussions with  
Mr. Phinney about this as well as having an Outlook appointment to discuss it by  
telephone further in July, which did not take place. She testified as follows:  
Mr. Outhouse: Did you have any discussions with Mr. Phinney that you recall about  
performing these services for free, or services for free generally?  
Ms. Aisthorpe: Yes, I do recall we had discussions about performing work for free, and  
the context of legitimate charitable work, so where carriers provide  
transportation and/or drivers for -- in support of legitimate charities.  
[Transcript, January 30, 2017, p. 216]  
[136]  
The MCD conducted a random inspection on Stock’s HMC August 18,  
2016. The impetus for the inspection was a complaint to the Clerk of the Board (Clerk)  
on August 16, 2016. Amongst the concerns were requests for drivers to exceed their  
hours and potential safety issues with the vehicle regarding brakes and tires. (This was  
later provided in an Incident Report prepared by Ms. Bishop and Mr. LePage dated  
August 22, 2016 and filed with the MCD.)  
[137]  
Ms. Aisthorpe stated that during a random inspection, the MCD would  
typically look at the steering, suspension and/or brakes. Consistent with past practice,  
Ms. Aisthorpe contacted Mr. Phinney by telephone and confirming email requiring the  
vehicle to be presented for inspection [Exhibit S-5, Tab 8, p.80].  
[138]  
In Mr. Phinney’s responding email, he stated the HMC is needed the next  
day and it will be available for inspection on Friday. Ms. Aisthorpe testified that was not  
satisfactory for safety reasons. If the allegations were founded and there were actual  
Document: 259021  
- 43 -  
imminent safety deficiencies, the risk of permitting its use could result in a failure of the  
vehicle and subsequent injury. Further emails were exchanged.  
[139]  
The inspection was conducted at Parts for Trucks in Dartmouth on August  
18, 2016, as it cannot be inspected at Stock’s facility. The Report [Exhibit S-5, Tab 9, p.  
83] noted there were 15 major items that had to be repaired before the vehicle would be  
permitted to operate again. Three deficiencies related to the brake system. The  
emergency brake efficiency was at 48%, even though the air brake efficiency was at  
87%. After a vehicle is repaired, a further inspection, including brake test is required.  
Less major items were to be repaired by September 15, 2016.  
[140]  
On August 27, 2016, Ms. Aisthorpe received an email from Mary  
Dempster, COO of Ambassatours, regarding Stock providing its HMC for its licensed  
service for overflow cruise ship services, stating they keep calling Stock and do not get  
a reply. It reads:  
Hi Natalie  
The last hearing was about Stock helping out (with 4 buses) and [the Board] gave them  
OK as last call buses…..but we call and they don’t answer the request. Is this bus on the  
road with Stock (its in their yard)?  
[Exhibit S-5, Tab 10, p. 86]  
The email attached an image of Stock’s HMC.  
[141]  
Ms. Aisthorpe testified she responded to Ms. Dempster’s email indicating  
the status that one HMC had been inspected, plated, and was ready for use for overflow  
cruise ship services.  
[142]  
On September 21, 2016, the MCD received a copy of Stock’s Response to  
Newbridge’s Tender for its transportation needs. The Response is dated August 25,  
2016, and provides Stock’s prices as well as its proposal to use two yellow school  
Document: 259021  
- 44 -  
buses for transporting students between the two sportsplexes used by Newbridge and  
to use all four of its HMCs for the transportation of the school’s hockey teams. The  
latter provides a schedule of each proposed hockey trip for the 2016/17 school year and  
Stock’s charges. The relevant trips up to November 20, 2016, are:  
Dates  
Pick Up  
Destination  
Pricing  
2016  
September 17-18  
September 24  
East Hants Sportsplex Charlottetown/  
Summerside, PE  
2000  
East Hants Sportsplex Amherst, NS  
East Hants Sportsplex Hingham, MA  
1200  
4100  
September 30-  
October 2  
October 13-15  
October 12-16  
October 20-23  
October 28-30  
October 27-30  
November 3-5  
November 10-13  
November 17-20  
East Hants Sportsplex Saint John, NB  
East Hants Sportsplex Trois-Riviéres, QC  
East Hants Sportsplex Toronto, ON  
East Hants Sportsplex Pictou Co., NS  
East Hants Sportsplex Boston, MA  
East Hants Sportsplex Burlington, ON  
East Hants Sportsplex Fredericton, NB  
East Hants Sportsplex Moncton, NB  
3000  
6500  
4000  
2000  
4000  
4000  
3000  
3000  
[143]  
The MCD also obtained a copy of the other Tender Response Newbridge  
received from a licensed motor carrier who had provided HMC services to Newbridge in  
the previous school year 2015/16.  
[144]  
The HMC was repaired, re-inspected and permitted to operate again on  
September 22, 2016.  
[145]  
Ms. Aisthorpe contacted Trevor MacEachern to obtain information about  
the coach transportation services Newbridge had received for its scheduled hockey trips  
Document: 259021  
- 45 -  
on September 17 and 24, 2016. She confirmed her request in an email dated  
September 26, 2016, which reads:  
Good afternoon Trevor-  
Further to our recent discussion and by way of follow-up, please provide the Division  
details (e.g. carrier name, itinerary, invoice, etc.) on the coach transportation services  
required by the NewBridge Varsity Hockey team(s) on:  
- September 17 - 18 from the East Hants Sportsplex to Charlottetown/Summerside, PE,  
and  
- September 24 from East Hants Sportsplex to Amherst, NS.  
Please do not hesitate to contact me with related comments or questions.  
Best regards,  
[Exhibit S-5, Tab 13, p. 95]  
[146]  
On September 27, 2016, Mr. MacEachern stated Newbridge had used an  
“activity bus” supplied by Stock as follows:  
Hey Natalie,  
With respect to your questions, with the late award of the tender and the start of school  
we decided to cancel the weekend to PEI for September 17-18.  
On September 24 and 25 Stock Transportation made available one of their activity buses,  
unit number 25593, to transport our team to Amherst for the games. After speaking with  
Stock this service was provided free of charge.  
If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.  
Best regards, [Emphasis added]  
[Exhibit S-5, Tab 13, p. 95]  
[147]  
Also on September 27, 2016, Ms. Aisthorpe received an email from  
Inspector Adam Levings [Exhibit S-17] which noted the odometer readings for Stock’s  
HMC. Ms. Aisthorpe testified the handwritten note on the email are her calculations of  
the difference between the odometer readings of September 22 and 27, 2016, being  
995.7 kilometers.  
[148]  
The MCD subsequently obtained Newbridge’s Facebook page.  
It  
contained an entry dated September 23, 2016, which referred to the PeeWee team  
Document: 259021  
- 46 -  
travelling to Saint John for the weekend after playing in Amherst. It included a picture of  
the team boarding and on Stock’s HMC; not an activity bus.  
[149]  
Mr. Penney saw Stock’s Freightliner school bus Vehicle Unit No. 25486 at  
East Hants Sportsplex on September 27, 2016. He conducted a routine roadside  
inspection where he checked the driver’s documents and did a cursory walk around of  
the vehicle for any defects. Documents could include the type of service being  
provided, the customer, the number of passengers and general service questions. His  
Inspection Report is Exhibit S-5, Tab 16.  
[150]  
The vehicle was plated SB-P00493 which is licensed to operate charter  
services. The driver advised he was providing backup services for Newbridge as its  
vehicle was out of service. Mr. Penney understood this meant Stock had been  
providing the services since the vehicle broke down. The driver also advised the  
services were being provided for free which Mr. Penney confirmed with Ms. Coldwell.  
[151]  
Mr. Penney provided the above information and documentation to Ms.  
Aisthorpe and testified Stock was currently being investigated to determine what was  
happening. He did not have any further involvement with Stock in 2016.  
[152]  
Upon receiving the documents, Ms. Aisthorpe reviewed the Report to  
make sure the vehicle was licensed to do the charter services, and that it had no major  
defects. She also reviewed the License and determined from the Licensed rates the  
charge for this service (being the greater of the kilometers or time) was $601.80 per trip  
[Exhibit S-5, p.109].  
[153]  
Due to the date stamp of September 21, 2016, on Stock’s Tender  
Response, Ms. Aisthorpe believes the MCD may have received drafts of Stock’s  
Document: 259021  
- 47 -  
Applications to amend both of its Licenses to add contract services for the  
transportation of Newbridge students. The formal Applications were completed, signed  
and received by the MCD on September 26, 2016 [Exhibit S-15 and Exhibit S-16].  
[154]  
When Ms. Aisthorpe sent the two Amendment Applications to the Clerk  
she attached a Memo, dated September 27, 2016 [Exhibit S-15, p. 1], that included the  
following:  
attaching Newbridge’s Facebook page postings, it appeared Stock is,  
and has, provided services to Newbridge;  
based on inspection reports Stock’s HMC has travelled 10,741  
kilometers since its initial inspection in April;  
the MCD’s request for Stock to provide details on HMC use remained  
outstanding; and  
Industry email inquiries include Stock’s HMC is not in use for overflow  
cruise ship services.  
[155]  
On October 19, 2016, the Clerk wrote a letter to Stock. It stated Board  
counsel would be reviewing information to assess whether Stock was not operating in  
accordance with these Licenses, the MC Act and/or Regulations which may lead to a  
Show Cause proceeding. Compliance is relevant to Stock’s current Amendment  
Applications pursuant to s. 13(a) of the MC Act. Also, any Show Cause proceeding may  
render those Applications moot. After noting these, the letter stated the Amendment  
Applications would not proceed until the Board received further advice from its counsel  
and/or any Show Cause proceeding concluded. The letter further advised Stock that it  
was not authorized to use its HMC to transport students, including from Newbridge, and  
this was not alleviated by providing the transportation services for free. This section of  
the letter reads:  
Document: 259021  
- 48 -  
Until these matters are resolved, Stock Transportation Limited is not authorized to use its  
highway motor coaches for the transportation of Newbridge Academy, or any other  
schools pupils, teachers, volunteers or chaperones as noted in its Licenses. This  
restriction is not alleviated by providing the services free of charge.  
[Exhibit S-7, Tab 28, pp. 16-17]  
[156]  
Upon being advised of the Board’s letter, Mr. MacEachern contacted Mr.  
Oxner, the Executive Director of the MCD and asked how Newbridge could secure a  
HMC for its hockey teams. Mr. MacEachern testified Mr. Oxner informed him  
Newbridge could either hire a local motor carrier or lease a vehicle.  
[157]  
By email dated October 31, 2016, Mr. MacEachern informed Mr. Oxner  
that Newbridge would like to have the following added to Newbridge’s License:  
Thanks for your call this afternoon. Here is the information on the bus that we would like  
to add to our currently licence below:  
2006 MCI J4500  
VIN # 2M93JMPAX6W063250  
[ibid, p. 14]  
[158]  
Mr. Oxner forwarded the information to the Clerk. The above vehicle is  
Stock’s HMC restricted to overflow cruise ship services and cannot be operated for  
schools.  
[159]  
On November 3, 2016, the MCD received documentation from one of its  
Inspectors who saw Stock’s HMC at a local arena transporting the students of  
Newbridge. The Inspector conducted a document review of the paperwork associated  
with the driver and the bus being used. The documentation received by the MCD  
included a lease agreement between Stock and Newbridge for the HMC, an insurance  
certificate expired on November 1, 2016, driver of the vehicle was Tina Power, and the  
business card of Mr. Flynn.  
Document: 259021  
- 49 -  
[160]  
The Notice of this Show Cause proceeding was dated December 2, 2016.  
With it Stock was provided with the documents the Board had at the time. These  
included the Charter Undertakings provided by Ms. Coldwell regarding Stock’s 2015  
invoices and deadhead charges.  
3. Show Cause Proceeding  
[161]  
The bulk of the information became known through this Show Cause  
proceeding.  
(A)  
Information Requests  
[162]  
On January 3, 2017, the Board issued Information Requests to Stock to  
be answered by January 16, 2017. The IRs were:  
Request IR-1:  
Regarding all movements of highway motor coaches from and/or to Nova Scotia from the  
first movements to the present, provide details of each movement including, but not  
limited to the following:  
a) Itinerary;  
b) Name of each group of passengers and the contact person for the group with all  
contact information;  
c) All quotes;  
d) All invoices;  
e) Vehicle dispatch information; and  
f) All trip inspection documents, drivers’ logs, etc.  
Request IR-2:  
Ensure that the answer provided to question No. 1 includes all School Boards and/or  
school personnel transported in the highway motor coaches as well as all contact  
information.  
Request IR-3:  
Provide copies of all mechanical documents and repairs on the highway motor coaches.  
Request IR-4:  
Regarding the email response of Trevor McEachern, CEO of Newbridge Academy,  
(Disclosure Package Vol I, Tab 13, page 95) that, for the hockey events on September  
24-25, 2016, Stock Transportation Ltd. provided an “activity bus, unit # 25593”:  
a) Was this information provided by Stock Transportation?  
b) Provide copies of any communication between the parties regarding this  
movement.  
Request IR-5:  
Document: 259021