Carriers lose port privileges despite delayed sanctions
Two trucking companies have lost their bid to keep the licences needed to move containers at the Port of Vancouver – despite arguing that the British Columbia Trucking Commissioner took too long to act on related violations.
Safeway Trucking and Coast Pacific Carrier, which operate as affiliated companies, faced sanctions following audits that were triggered by confidential complaints from four drivers in June 2020.
Audits between Sept. 1, 2020, and March 8, 2021, uncovered a series of issues. Among them, four drivers were required to become independent operators and take an ownership interest in equipment in which the businesses had an ownership interest, and seven drivers were underpaid $14,379.59. The businesses also retaliated against complaints by threatening to cease to provide work, canceling or threatening to cancel truck insurance, and sending threatening letters.
The businesses had also failed to comply with a 2018 order to pay a sum of money to one of their drivers.
Late decision
The commissioner’s final decision to cancel the licences came on March 8, 2022 – six months and 21 days after a proposed decision was released. The number of days is noteworthy because the Container Trucking Act requires a decision within six months after the commissioner learns about alleged violations.
While the businesses made that case in a judicial review before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the issue had not been raised before the commissioner.
“The 21-day delay was not a lengthy one. It caused no prejudice to the petitioners. There is no suggestion of bad faith,” Supreme Court of British Columbia Justice Milman ruled.
“On the contrary, the delay can be explained, at least in part, by the extension given to the petitioners for the delivery of their responding submissions and evidence after their own statutory deadline had expired.
“The petitioners should not be allowed to raise the timeliness argument for the first time on review in this court. Indeed, if I were called upon to decide the issue on the merits, I would find the commissioner’s interpretation to be the better one.”