Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City),  1 S.C.R. 231,  S.C.J.
No. 15, 110 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 163 N.R. 81,  3 W.W.R. 609, J.E. 94-374,
41 B.C.A.C. 81, 88 B.C.L.R. (2d) 145, 20 Admin. L.R. (2d) 202, 20 M.P.L.R. (2d) 1,
46 A.C. W.S. (3d) 132; St. Jean (Litigation guardian of) v. Cheung (2008), 94 O.R.
(3d) 359,  O.J. No. 4862, 2008 ONCA 815, 244 O.A.C. 160, 304 D.L.R. (4th)
619, 172 A.C. W.S. (3d) 1051
Statutes referred to
Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2
Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3
Legislation Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 21, Sch. F, Part III [as am.], s. 17(a), Part VI
[as am.], ss. 46, 47, 49, 52, (3), 87 [as am.]
Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sch. B
Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, s. 440 [as am.]
Rules and regulations referred to
Canadian Aviation Regulations, SOR/96-433 [as am.]
Authorities referred to
Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 6th ed. (Markham, Ont.:
APPEAL from the judgment of M.R. Gibson J. of the Superior
Court of Justice dated June 30, 2016 requiring the appellant to
apply for permit for fill work and site alteration.
John B. Laskin and Peter E.J. Wells, for appellant.
Ian Blue, Q.C., and Anna Husa, for respondent.
The judgment of the court was delivered by
 SHARPE J.A.: — The appellant, Burlington Airpark Inc.
(“Airpark”), owns an aerodrome located in the City of Burling-
ton, the respondent on this appeal. Airpark appeals an order
requiring it to file an application for a permit under Burlington’s
By-law 64-2014 for fill work and site alteration carried out
before the 2014 by-law was passed and while an earlier by-law
was in effect.
 Airpark’s fill and site alteration work commenced in 2008.
Until 2013, Burlington accepted that the work was part of an airport improvement and therefore not subject to regulation by a
municipality. In 2013, Airpark applied for a severance to obtain
land needed to extend the main runway. At that point, Burlington
investigated and took the position that Airpark was conducting
a commercial fill operation and that By-law 6-2003 did apply.
Accordingly, Burlington issued a notice to comply. Airpark took
the position that, as an aerodrome, pursuant to the Constitution
Act, 1867 it was not subject to the 2003 by-law. A consent order
was entered precluding Airpark from conducting any further fill