Date: 20130916
Docket: T-616-12
T-619-12
T-620-12
T-621-12
T-633-12
T-634-12
T-635-12
Citation: 2013 FC 953
Ottawa, Ontario, September 16, 2013
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley
BETWEEN:
T-616-12
LEANNE BIELLI
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND
(THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER),
URMA ELLIS (RETURNING OFFICER
FOR DON VALLEY EAST), JOE DANIEL,
YASMIN RATANSI, MARY TRAPANI
HYNES, AKIL SADIKALI KIDD
RespondentsPage: 2
AND BETWEEN: T-619-12
SANDRA MCEWING AND BILL KERR
Applicants
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND
(THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER),
JOHANNA GAIL DENESIUK (RETURNING
OFFICER FOR WINNIPEG SOUTH
CENTRE), JOYCE BATEMAN,
ANITA NEVILLE,
DENNIS LEWYCKY, JOSHUA MCNEIL,
LYNDON B. FROESE, MATT HENDERSON
Respondents
AND BETWEEN:
T-620-12
KAY BURKHART
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND
(THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER),
DIANNE CELESTINE ZIMMERMAN
(RETURNING OFFICER FOR
SASKATOON-ROSETOWN-BIGGAR),
KELLY BLOCK, LEE REANEY,
VICKI STRELIOFF, NETTIE WIEBE
RespondentsPage: 3
AND BETWEEN:
T-621-12
JEFF REID
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND
(THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER),
LAUREL DUPONT
(RETURNING OFFICER FOR
ELMWOOD-TRANSCONA),
JIM MALOWAY, ILONA NIEMCZYK,
LAWRENCE TOET, ELLEN YOUNG
Respondents
AND BETWEEN:
T-633-12
KEN FERANCE
AND
PEGGY WALSH CRAIG
Applicants
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND
(THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER),
DIANNE JAMES MALLORY
(RETURNING OFFICER FOR
NIPISSING-TIMISKAMING),
JAY ASPIN, SCOTT EDWARD DALEY,
RONA ECKERT, ANTHONY ROTA
RespondentsPage: 4
AND BETWEEN:
T-634-12
YVONNE KAFKA
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND
(THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER),
ALEXANDER GORDON (RETURNING
OFFICER FOR VANCOUVER
ISLAND NORTH), JOHN DUNCAN,
MIKE HOLLAND, RONNA-RAE LEONARD,
SUE MOEN, FRANK MARTIN,
JASON DRAPER
Respondents
AND BETWEEN:
T-635-12
THOMAS JOHN PARLEE
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND
(THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER),
SUSAN J. EDELMAN
(RETURNING OFFICER FOR YUKON),
RYAN LEEF, LARRY BAGNELL,
KEVIN BARR, JOHN STREICKER
RespondentsPage: 5
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Court issued judgment on May 23, 2013 in files T-619-12, T-620-12, T-621-12, T-633-
12, T-634-12 and T-635-12 dismissing applications to annul the results of the 2011 General
Election in six ridings won by the respondent Members of Parliament Joyce Bateman, Kelly Block,
Lawrence Toet, Jay Aspin, John Duncan and Ryan Leef.
[2] In addition to dismissing the applications, the Court awarded the respondent Members of
Parliament costs for the hearing in an amount to be fixed in accordance with the directions given in
the reasons for judgment and awarded the applicants costs for the motions in which they were
successful on a solicitor and client basis. The other responding parties were to bear their own costs.
[3] A seventh application, in file T-616-12, was dismissed on October 26, 2012 with costs
reserved to the applications judge upon the disposition of the other applications.
[4] In the Reasons for Judgment (2013 FC 525) the Court made the following comments
pertaining to the question of costs:
259 The right of citizen electors to seek to annul election results that they reasonably
believe to be tainted by fraud is, in my view, a matter of high public interest and analogous
to Charter litigation. A concern that has frequently been raised is that such litigation should
not be beyond the reach of the ordinary citizen. The courts have gone so far as to require that
a portion of the costs of such cases be paid by the opposing successful parties: M v H,
[1996] OJ No 2597 (QL) (Ct J (Gen Div)) at paras 17, 30; Lavigne, above, at para 106.
260 I am mindful of the fact that in this instance the applicants have received guarantees of
indemnification by a non-governmental organization which has been raising funds for that
purpose. But it is also apparent that the respondent MPs are supported by the resources of
the party to which they belong, resources which are underwritten by taxpayers.
261 These proceedings have had partisan overtones from the outset. That was particularly
evident in the submissions of the respondent MPs. In reviewing the procedural history and Page: 6
the evidence and considering the arguments advanced by the parties at the hearing, it has
seemed to me that the applicants sought to achieve and hold the high ground of promoting
the integrity of the electoral process while the respondent MPs engaged in trench warfare in
an effort to prevent this case from coming to a hearing on the merits.
262 Despite the obvious public interest in getting to the bottom of the allegations, the CPC
made little effort to assist with the investigation at the outset despite early requests. I note
that counsel for the CPC was informed while the election was taking place that the calls
about polling station changes were improper. While it was begrudgingly conceded during
oral argument that what occurred was “absolutely outrageous”, the record indicates that the
stance taken by the respondent MPs from the outset was to block these proceedings by any
means.
263 The preliminary stages were marked by numerous objections to the evidence adduced
by the applicants. The respondent MPs sought to strike the applications on the ground that
they were frivolous and vexatious, to have them dismissed as champertous and to require
excessive security for costs, in transparent attempts to derail this case.
264 There have been interlocutory decisions made by the case management prothonotaries
during the proceedings with related costs awards. The applicants are, in my view, entitled to
be awarded costs on each of the pre-hearing motions in which they have been successful on
a solicitor and client basis to be paid jointly and severally by the respondent MPs. This
applies also to the champerty motion and the motion to exclude the Graves evidence which
was brought initially in relation to the Don Valley East application and then deemed to
apply to each of the other applications.
265 Apart from the motion costs, and with the above considerations in mind, I am inclined
to order a modest fixed amount for the costs of the hearing. Absent an agreement as to the
amount, the respondent MPs may make written submissions limited to ten pages within
thirty days of the date of this judgment. The applicants will then have fifteen days in which
to respond and the respondent MPs another five days to reply. I will then award a fixed sum
in an amount I consider appropriate given the foregoing comments. The other respondents
will bear their own costs.
[5] The respondent Members of Parliament submit that they should be awarded compensation
in the amount of $120,000 based on the lowest tariff rate, or $60,000 if based on one-half of the
lowest tariff rate, for the costs of preparing and filing written submissions, and the cost of two
lawyers preparing for one week and attending at court. They also seek disbursements of
$235,907.56. The largest part of the claim for disbursements relates to payment for the services of
an expert witness, Dr. Ruth Corbin, in the amount of $166,363.79. The bulk of this would have been Page: 7
incurred prior to the hearing. Disbursements claimed for the hearing, without further explanation,
are $54,202.35. The balance relates to travel and accommodation costs prior to the hearing
($9,134.84), cross examination transcripts ($6,064.71), delivery costs ($112.49) and a driver’s
license search ($29.38).
[6] Noting that the applicants have not served any submissions concerning their costs on the
motions with respect to which they were successful, the respondent Members of Parliament submit
that their costs ought to be awarded and offset against the costs to be awarded to the applicants on a
solicitor and client basis for their success on the motions. The Court has no basis at present, apart
from the amount of time spent on the motions at the hearing, upon which to determine what those
costs may be.
[7] The applicants submit that in making a determination as to costs, access to justice should be
the Court’s paramount consideration, recognizing the public interest nature of the case and the
principle that the ability of citizens to bring such matters before the courts should not be deterred.
They ask that the Court consider whether, in light of its findings of fact in this matter and the
fundamental constitutional issue at stake, this is an appropriate case for the Court to decline to
award any costs. In the alternative, the applicants submit, that should the Court remain inclined to
award “a modest fixed amount for the cost of the hearing” the amount should be small and
considered modest from the point of view of individual citizens so as not to deter electors from
seeking to defend their democratic franchise. Page: 8
[8] With respect to the quantum of costs proposed by the respondent Members of Parliament,
the applicants submit that the amounts claimed are unjustified and inconsistent with the modest
fixed amount yardstick. By their calculation, total legal fees under the Column I of Tariff B
guidelines would be no more than $7,995.Any award for disbursements should exclude the
$54, 202.35 claimed for “hearing costs” and the entire amount claimed as expert witness costs in
light of the Court’s findings with regard to the nature and presentation of Dr. Corbin’s evidence and
the lack of any detailed account upon which the reasonableness of the claim could be assessed.
[9] As stated by Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Incredible
Electronics Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [2006] 80 OR (3d) 723 [Incredible Electronics] at
para 63:
As a matter of general principle, costs compensate the successful
litigant for the expense to which he or she has been put by the suit
having been improperly resisted or improperly brought: Ryan v.
McGregor, [1925] O.J. No. 126, 58 O.L.R. 213 (App. Div.). The
court's discretion to award costs is designed to further three
fundamental purposes in the administration of justice: (1) to
indemnify successful litigants for the costs of litigation, although not
necessarily completely; (2) to encourage settlements; and (3) to
discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants in their
conduct of the proceedings: British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v.
Okanagan Indian Band, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371, [2003] S.C.J. No. 76;
Fong v. Chan (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 330, [1999] O.J. No. 4600 (C.A.);
Fellowes, McNeil v. Kansa General International Insurance Co.
(1997), 37 O.R. (3d) 464, [1997] O.J. No. 5130 (Gen. Div.);
Skidmore v. Blackmore, [1995] B.C.J. No. 305, 122 D.L.R. (4th)
330 (C.A.).
[10] This is not a case in which the applications were improperly brought or where the applicants
engaged in inappropriate behaviour in their conduct of the proceedings. In contrast, as noted above,
I found that the respondent MPs “engaged in trench warfare in an effort to prevent this case from Page: 9
coming to a hearing on the merits” and adopted a stance aimed at blocking the applications “by any
means”. Settlement was not at any time a realistic outcome in light of the nature of the allegations
and the evidence that attempts had been made by parties unknown to interfere with the democratic
process.
[11] The Supreme Court has affirmed the importance of access to justice in public interest cases
and the duty of the courts to craft costs orders that support and promote this goal. As stated by
Justice Lebel for the majority in British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v Okanagan Indian Band
2003 SCC 71, [2003] 3 SCR 371, [2003] SCJ No 76 (QL), at para 27, courts should exercise the
power to award costs in a manner that:
…helps to ensure that ordinary citizens have access to the justice
system when they seek to resolve matters of consequence to the
community as a whole.
[12] Rule 400(1) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, confers full discretionary power on
the Court to determine the amount and allocation of costs. Rule 400(3) provides a list of factors the
Court may consider in awarding costs, including: the result of the proceeding; the importance and
complexity of the issues, the amount of work involved; whether the public interest in having the
proceedings litigated justifies a particular award of costs; and any conduct that tended to
unnecessarily lengthen the duration of the proceeding. Rule 400(4) allows the Court to award a
lump sum in lieu of, or in addition to, any assessed costs. Rule 400(6)(c) provides that the Court's
discretion includes the power to "award all or part of costs on a solicitor-and-client basis."
[13] Criteria for determining the circumstances where costs should not be awarded against a
person who commences public interest litigation were identified by the Ontario Law Reform Page: 10
Commission in its Report on the Law of Standing (Toronto: Ministry of the Attorney General,
1989):
a) The proceeding involves issues the importance of which extends
beyond the immediate interests of the parties involved.
b) The person has no personal, proprietary or pecuniary interest in
the outcome of the proceeding, or, if he or she has an interest, it
clearly does not justify the proceeding economically.
c) The issues have not been previously determined by a court in a
proceeding against the same defendant.
d) The defendant has a clearly superior capacity to bear the costs of
the proceeding.
e) The plaintiff has not engaged in vexatious, frivolous or abusive
conduct.
[14] These factors have been approved in a number of Canadian jurisdictions including the
Federal Court: see Harris v Canada, 2001 FCT 1408 at para 222; Guide Outfitters Association v
British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2005 BCCA 368 at para 8; Miller v
Boxall, 2007 SKQB 9 at para 5; Hastings Park Conservancy v Vancouver (City), 2007 BCSC 147 at
para 4; Victoria (City) v Adams, 2009 BCCA 563 [Victoria (City)] at para 185; R v Griffin, 2009
ABQB 696 at para 183; Georgia Strait Alliance v Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)
[2011] FCJ No 587 (QL) (TD) at para 3.11, appeal allowed in part but not on the question of costs,
2012 FCA 40 Georgia Strait Alliance.
[15] In the Georgia Strait Alliance decision, Justice James Russell concluded at paragraph 3.14
that an order for costs on a solicitor and client basis was justified because of the “unjustifiably
evasive and obstructive approach” undertaken by the respondents in the case that “unnecessarily
lengthened and complicated the proceedings”. Similarly, in this matter I concluded that an order for
costs on a solicitor and client basis against the respondent Members of Parliament was justified Page: 11
because of the manner in which they had defended against the applications including the bringing of
motions that unnecessarily lengthened and complicated the proceedings.
[16] Adapting the principled approach set out in the Ontario Law Reform Commission report to
any case in which the court was being asked to depart from the normal rules as to costs, the British
Columbia Court of Appeal distilled the test into four elements at paragraph 188 of Victoria (City),
above:
1. The case involves matters of public importance that transcend the
immediate interests of the named parties, and which [had] not been
previously resolved;
2. The [claimant] has no personal, proprietary or pecuniary interest in the
outcome of the litigation that would justify the proceeding economically;
3. [The party opposing the claimant] has a superior capacity to bear the cost
of the proceeding; and
4. The [claimant] has not conducted the litigation in an abusive,
vexatious or frivolous manner.
[17] According to Perell J. in Incredible Electronics, above, where a litigant is seeking relief
from adverse costs liability these factors should be resolved by a single question namely, whether
the party is a genuine public interest litigant. Justice Perell stated at paragraph 83:
In my opinion, in the case at bar, the proposition that public interest
litigation requires special treatment should guide the exercise of my
discretion. Put differently, in my opinion, the applicants should not
be subject to the normal two-way costs regime if they can satisfy the
court that they are special interest litigants.
[18] I am satisfied that the applicants in this matter were genuine public interest litigants
motivated by a higher purpose. These proceedings fell squarely within the criteria endorsed by in
Harris and the other decisions cited above. The applications involved issues, the importance of
which extended beyond the immediate interests of the parties involved. The applicants had no Page: 12
personal, proprietary or pecuniary interest in the outcome that would have justified the proceedings
economically. They stood to gain nothing other than the vindication of their electoral rights. The
issues had not been previously determined by a court in proceedings against the same defendants
and the applicants did not engage in vexatious, frivolous or abusive conduct. This was not a case of
unwarranted election challenges. There was a factual foundation, albeit one which I ultimately
found fell short of meeting the statutory threshold required to annul the election results in their
ridings.
[19] The question of whether the applicants or the respondent MPs have a clearly superior
capacity to bear the costs of the proceedings is a neutral factor in this matter. Much was made of the
involvement of a third party organization, the Council of Canadians, in raising funds to indemnify
the applicants from an adverse costs award. As I noted, however, at para 260 of the Reasons for
Judgment, it was also apparent that the respondent Members of Parliament were supported by the
extensive resources of the political party to which they belong - resources which are underwritten
by Canadian taxpayers. That argument was not challenged during the hearing nor was anything
provided to me in the costs submissions to call it into question.
[20] The respondent Members of Parliament are, therefore, in a position analogous to that of
government respondents and defendants who have not been awarded costs in cases where they have
been successful in the result. See for example Harrison v University of British of Columbia, [1986]
BCJ No 2201 (QL), 30 DLR (4th) 206 (SC), additional reasons on costs [1986] BCJ No 1172 (QL),
[1987] 2 WWR 378 (SC), rev’d [1988] BCJ No 13 (QL), 21 BCLR (2d) 145 (CA), aff’d [1990] 3
SCR 451, [1990] SCJ No 123 (QL); Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Page: 13
Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4, [2004] 1 SCR 76; Sierra Club of Western Canada v
British Columbia (Attorney General), [1991] BCJ No 2613 (QL), 83 DLR (4th) 708 (SC).
[21] This is not a case such as Opitz v Wrzesnewskyj, 2012 SCC 55, [2012] SCJ No 55 (QL)
[Opitz], where a losing candidate challenged an election result based on clerical errors in voter
registration. In that case, the parties bore their own costs at first instance and on the appeal. Here,
the allegations were far more serious, being of electoral fraud. It would be incongruous, in my view,
to impose a greater burden upon the applicants who stepped forward to present those allegations,
than that considered appropriate in a contest between two candidates in which the challenger had
clear personal interests, including an economic interest, in the outcome.
[22] The applicants have argued that to impose any significant measure of costs against them
would have a chilling effect on electors who might be the victims of voter fraud in the future. I
agree. The fact that a third party has stepped forward to indemnify the applicants in this case can not
be counted upon as a solution for any case that might arise again. The respondent Members of
Parliament had the financial support of a major political party to conduct an aggressive no holds
barred defence against the applications and are not in jeopardy of absorbing the costs themselves. I
note also that Parliament has seen fit to fix a modest amount ($1,000) as the security for costs to be
paid when an election challenge is filed to discourage nuisance applications.
[23] I do not accept the respondent MPs’ contention that a ruling that unsuccessful applicants
should be relieved of the obligation to pay costs would clearly increase the “litigation margin”, of
which the Supreme Court warned in Opitz, with a resulting decrease of confidence by the public in Page: 14
the finality of elections. The Canada Elections Act, LC 2000 c.9 provides a mechanism in s 531(1)
for the early dismissal of applications that are “vexatious, frivolous or not made in good faith”.
[24] Having considered the matter further, I have reached the conclusion that the “modest fixed
amount for the costs of the hearing” that should be awarded the respondent MPs is the amount paid
into court for the seven applications, $7,000, plus disbursements of $6,206. I make no award for the
other costs incurred by the respondent MPs in preparation for and conduct of the hearing.
[25] In their reply submissions, the respondent MPs noted that it was to be expected that their
much higher costs on a lower scale and the applicants’ much lower costs on a higher (solicitor
client) scale would roughly balance each other. That was the Court’s intent. Given the conclusions
reached above, there is no longer any need to consider the award of solicitor and client costs to the
applicants for their success on the motions. Page: 15
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. the respondent Members of Parliament are awarded costs of $7,000 for the
hearing and disbursements of $6,206.
2. the amounts paid into court by the applicants may be released to the respondent
Members of Parliament in partial payment of the costs award; and
3. the Court will not determine an amount of costs to be paid on a solicitor and client
basis to the applicants for their success on the motions in this matter.
“Richard G. Mosley”
Judge FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-616-12, T-619-12 (T-620-12, T-621-12,
T-633-12, T-634-12, T-635-12)
STYLE OF CAUSE: LEEANNE BIELLI
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL
OFFICER), URMA ELLIS (RETURNING
OFFICER FOR DON VALLEY EAST),
JOE DANIEL, YASMIN RATANSI,
MARY TRANPANI HYNES,
AKIL SADIKALI, RYAN KIDD
AND BETWEEN: SANDRA MCEWING AND BILL KERR
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL
OFFICER), JOHANNA GAIL DENESIUK
RETURNING OFFICER FOR WINNIPEG
SOUTH CENTRE) JOYCE BATEMAN,
ANITA NEVILLE, DENNIS LEWYCKY,
JOSHUA MCNEIL, LYNDON B. FROESE,
MATT HENDERSON
AND BETWEEN KAY BURKHART
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL
OFFICER), DIANNE CELESTINE ZIMMERMAN
(RETURNING OFFICER FOR SASKATOON-
ROSETOWN-BIGGAR), KELLY BLOCK,
LEE REANEY, VICKI STRELIOFF, NETTIE WIEBE Page: 2
AND BETWEEN JEFF REID
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL
OFFICER), LAUREL DUPONT (RETURNING
OFFICER FOR ELMWOOD-TRANSCONA),
JIM MALOWAY, ILONA NIEMCZYK,
LAWRENCE TOET, ELLEN YOUNG
AND BETWEEN KEN FERANCE
AND PEGGY WALSH
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL
OFFICER), DIANNE JAMES MALLORY
(RETURNING OFFICER FOR NIPISSING-
TIMISKAMING), JAY ASPIN, SCOTT
EDWARD DALEY, RONA ECKERT,
ANTHONY ROTA
AND BETWEEN YVONNE KAFKA
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL
OFFICER), ALEXANDER GORDON
(RETURNING OFFICER FOR VANCOUVER
ISLAND NORTH), JOHN DUNCAN,
MIKE HOLLAND, RONNA-RAE LEONARD,
SUE MOEN, FRANK MARTIN, JASON DRAPER Page: 3
AND BETWEEN THOMAS JOHN PARLEE
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
MARC MAYRAND (THE CHIEF ELECTORAL
OFFICER), SUSAN J. ELELMAN (RETURNING
OFFICER FOR YUKON), RYAN LEEF,
LARRY BAGNELL, KEVIN BARR,
JOHN STREICKER
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 25, 2013 (costs submissions in writing)
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: MOSLEY J.
DATED: September 16, 2013
APPEARANCES:
Steven Shrybman
Peter Engelmann
Benjamin Piper
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Barbara McIsaac
Marc Chenier
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer)
Arthur Hamilton
Ted Frankel
Jeremy Martin
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(Responding Parliamentarians)
W. Thomas Barlow
Nick Shkordoff
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(Responding Market Group Inc) Page: 4
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
SACK GOLDBLATT
MITCHELL LLP
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANTS
BORDEN LADNER
GERVAIS LLP
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer)
CASSELS, BROCK &
BLACKWELL LLP
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(Responding Parliamentarians)
FASKEN MARTINEAU
DUMOULIN LLP
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
(Responding Market Group Inc)
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Monday, September 16, 2013
Bombardier CSeries 9/16.2013/
Bombardier CSeries
CSeries
CSeries Flight Test Vehicle (FTV1) rolled-out at Mirabel Airport.
Role Narrow-body jet airliner
National origin Canada
Manufacturer Bombardier Aerospace
First flight September 16, 2013[1]
Introduction planned: September 2014 (CS100)[2]
planned: end of 2014 (CS300)
Status CS100: early production/test phase
CS300: in development
Unit cost CS100: US$ 62 million
CS300: US$ 71 million[3]
The Bombardier CSeries is a family of narrow-body, twin-engine, medium-range jet airliners that are being developed by Canadian manufacturer Bombardier Aerospace. Models are the 110-seat CS100, and the 135-seat CS300. These were initially named C110 and C130, respectively. In certification documentation, the CSeries family is designated Bombardier BD-500, with suffix -1A10 for the CS100 and -1A11 for the CS300.[4]
This new CSeries jet, which offers 110-seat and 135-seat versions, competes with the Boeing 737 Next Generation 737-600, 737-700, Airbus A318, Airbus A319, and Embraer 195. Bombardier claims the CSeries will burn 20% less fuel per trip than these competitors.[5]
The first flight for the CS100 occurred on September 16, 2013.[6]
Contents [hide]
1 Development
1.1 Background
1.2 CSeries
1.3 Restarting programme
1.4 Renamed models
1.5 Recent developments
2 Design
3 Orders and deliveries
4 Specifications
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
Development
Background
During the demise of Fokker, Bombardier considered purchasing that company in order to gain access to the Fokker 100 100-seat short-haul aircraft. They eventually decided against a purchase and ended discussions in February 1996.[7]
The Bombardier BRJX, or "Bombardier Regional Jet eXpansion", was a project for a larger regional jet than the Canadair Regional Jet. Instead of 2–2 seating, the BRJX was to have a wider fuselage with 2–3 seating, and underwing engine pods. It was projected to seat 80 to 120 passengers, abutting the smallest narrow-body jetliners, like the 2–3 DC-9/MD-80/Boeing 717 or the 3–3 A318/737-500/737-600. The project was shelved by Bombardier in favour of stretching the CRJ700 into the CRJ900.
Meanwhile, the 72-seat Embraer E-170 came to market (production began in 2002), followed by the 110-seat E-195. Both models were widely adopted, and Bombardier had no product to compete with them in that capacity range.
CSeries
In July 2004, Bombardier announced the development of the CSeries family of airliners to replace the cancelled BRJX project. The CSeries would be larger than the current Canadair Regional Jets, and capable of carrying 110 to 130 passengers. For the first time, Bombardier would be competing directly with the smallest airliners from Boeing and Airbus. At the time, Bombardier expected the aircraft to be available by 2013.
In March 2005, Bombardier's board decided to promote the plane to airlines to gather advance orders. Two models were announced: the C110 with layouts from 100–125 seats, and the C130 with layouts from 120–145 seats. The CSeries would feature new, more fuel-efficient engines and a higher percentage of composite materials in its fuselage,[8] a strategy similar to that used on the wide-body Boeing 787 Dreamliner and forthcoming Airbus A350 XWB.
The new aircraft would seat passengers in a 2–3 arrangement in coach and a 2–2 arrangement in business/first class, similar to the Boeing 717. With the 2–3 arrangement, 80% of the seats would be aisle or window seats, contrary to 'middle' seats (seats set between two other seats). The aircraft would have under-wing turbofans. The CSeries' cross sectionwas designed to give enhanced seating comfort for passengers, with features like broader seats and armrests for the middle passenger and larger windows at every seat to give every passenger the physical and psychological advantages of ample natural light.
In May 2005, Bombardier secured agreements with the Federal Government of Canada, the Provincial Government of Quebec, and the Government of the United Kingdom for support and loans for the CSeries project. The Canadian government has committed US$350 million in financing; the British government has committed US$300 million. The program will cost about $3.5 billion, and Bombardier will share the cost with suppliers and governments.[9]
The fuselage was to be built by China Aviation Industry Corporation (AVIC)'s affiliate Shenyang Aircraft Corporation.[8] Final assembly of the aircraft was to be at Mirabel Airport,Mirabel, Quebec, outside Montreal.[10] Substantial portions of the aircraft were to be constructed at Bombardier facilities in Belfast, Northern Ireland.[11]
On 31 January 2006, Bombardier announced it would not go forward with plans to develop the CSeries after it had failed to secure significant orders to that point. It stated that it would keep a small team of roughly 50 employees working on the CSeries marketing plan, and would include other risk-sharing partners in the program.[12][13] With the CSeries on hold, Bombardier announced on 18 February 2006 that it would begin work on the 100-seat CRJ1000 regional jet.
Restarting programmeCSeries display mockup, presented during the 2008 Farnborough Airshow.
On 31 January 2007, Bombardier announced that work on the aircraft would continue.[14] In November 2007, Bombardier announced that the Pratt & Whitney Geared Turbofan (now PW1000G) would be the exclusive powerplant for the CSeries.[15] On 22 February 2008, Bombardier Aerospace announced that its parent company's Board of Directors authorized it to offer formal sales proposals of the CSeries family to airline customers.[16]
On 13 July 2008, in a press conference on the eve of the opening of the Farnborough Airshow, Bombardier Aerospace announced the launch of the CSeries, with a letter of interest for 60 aircraft (including 30 options) from Lufthansa. The final assembly of the aircraft would be done at a new assembly facility to be built beside the existing one where the CRJ700 and CRJ900 are assembled in Mirabel, north of Montreal.[17] Ghafari Associates was retained to develop the Montreal manufacturing site to accommodate CSeries production.[18] The CSeries aircraft will use the Rockwell Collins Pro Line Fusion avionics suite, an integrated cockpit system which incorporates 15 inch displays, with comprehensive navigation, communications, surveillance, engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS), and aircraft maintenance systems.[19]
The CSeries is designed for the 100- to 149-seat market category. Bombardier estimated this market to be 19,333 aircraft,[20] representing more than $250 billion revenue over the next 20 years. Bombardier expects to be able to capture up to half of this market with the CSeries.[21] In 2009, first flight for the CSeries was expected in 2012.[22]
In 2009, Mongolian airline Eznis Airways was reported to have signed a letter of interest for seven CSeries aircraft.[23] Qatar Airways had previously been in talks with Bombardier, but broke off talks in 2009 after disagreeing on terms.[24] An unnamed lessor was understood to be in talks for 40 aircraft.[25] On 11 March 2009, Bombardier announced the first firm orders for the CSeries. Lufthansa, who originally had signed a letter of interest for 60 aircraft, firmed up an order for 30. The aircraft are to be operated by Lufthansa subsidiarySwiss European Air Lines.[26]
Renamed models
In March 2009 Bombardier also announced that the C110 and C130 were being redesignated CS100 and CS300, respectively.[27] The models were offered in normal and extended range (ER) versions, additionally, an extra thrust (XT) version of the CS300 was also offered.[28] The ER and XT versions were removed in 2012 by Bombardier, providing a standard range equal to the one previously identified as extended range.[29]
On 30 March 2009, Bombardier inked the second CSeries order, with airliner lessor Lease Corporation International (LCI) of Dublin, Ireland ordering 3 CS100s and 17 CS300s, becoming the launch customer of the latter.[30] LCI also holds options for a further 20 aircraft.[31]
In January 2010, JP Morgan reported that Bombardier was considering a 150-seat version of the CSeries. Bombardier called the report speculative, noting that the CSeries development program "is in the joint definition phase where we will be able to add greater product definition and that includes the ability to make changes before the final design is frozen".[32]
Republic Airways Holdings ordered 40 CS300 aircraft with options for an additional 40 in February 2010.[33] In March 2010, easyJet stated that the company was having “ongoing discussions with Bombardier regarding its CSeries.[34] In December 2009, United Airlines expressed interest in using the CS100 and CS300 for replacing its retiring 737–300 and 737-500 aircraft.[35] But no plans or orders had been made by United Airlines as of December 2011.
On 1 June 2011, Braathens Leasing Limited in Sweden announced that it had placed a firm order for five CS100 and five CS300 aircraft with options for ten more aircraft. With the order, Bombardier had secured a combined 100 firm orders.[36] On 7 June 2011, Bombardier announced that an unnamed airline had placed a firm order for three CSeries airliners, with options for three more.[37] On 20 June 2011, Bombardier announced it had secured a launch customer for the CS100 at the Paris Air Show. The undisclosed airline signed a firm order for 10 aircraft with an option for six more.[38] On 21 June 2011, Korean Air announced signing a letter of intent to purchase 10 CS300 plus an additional 10 options and 10 purchasing rights on CS300; this agreement was converted to a firm order on 29 July 2011.[39][40] On 24 June 2011, the last day of the 2011 Paris Show, Bombardier announced a deal with an undisclosed European carrier to purchase ten CS100s.[41]
On 17 August 2011, at the MAKS Airshow, Bombardier announced an agreement with Ilyushin Finance for up to 30 CSeries aircraft.[42]Atlasjet announced plans on 15 November 2011 to purchase ten CS300 aircraft with options for another five.[43] In July 2012, Latvia'sairBaltic announced plans to order 20 CSeries jets for delivery starting in 2015, in place of the Airbus A319s which had been previously considered.[44][45] airBaltic announced a firm order for 10 CS300 aircraft plus an option for 10 additional aircraft in December 2012.[46]
Recent developments]
The CSeries programme has several major suppliers, including Shenyang Aircraft (centre fuselage), Alenia Aeronautica (horizontal and vertical stabilisers), Fokker Elmo (wiring and interconnection systems), C&D Zodiac (interiors), Parker Hannifin (flight control, fuel and hydraulics systems), Liebherr-Aerospace (air management system), Goodrich (flap and slat actuation systems and engine nacelles), and Rockwell Collins (avionics).[47][48]
The first flight was initially planned for the second half of 2012.[49] In 2010, deliveries of the CS100 was planned to start in 2013, and CS300 deliveries were to follow a year later.[50]
In March 2012, Bombardier specified the target date for the first flight was December 2012,[51] and reaffirmed that date in June 2012.[52]A news report in June 2012 stated that first CS100 delivery remained scheduled for the end of 2013.[52][53]
At the Farnborough Airshow in July 2012, Bombardier started discussions with AirAsia about a proposed 160-seat configuration for the CS300 airliner.[54] In November 2012, this configuration was included in the CS300 project, although AirAsia rejected this proposal.[55]
During a conference call in November 2012, Bombardier Aerospace acknowledged a delay of six months, for both first flight and entry into service of the CS100, due to issues with some unspecified suppliers.[56] This pushes initial deliveries to customers into 2014. The CS300 program remains on schedule.[56]
On February 20, 2013 Bombardier announced that Ilyushin Finance Co., which in August 2011 signed a letter of intent, converted that into a purchase agreement, subject to approval by its shareholders, for 32 CS300 aircraft.[57] On the same day, Pratt & Whitneyannounced that its PW1500G had been granted certification by Transport Canada.[58] The PW1500G powers the CSeries.
During its earnings call on February 21, 2013, Bombardier announced that the first completed CSeries aircraft would be presented publicly the following month.[59][60] An extensive update on the CSeries program was presented on March 7, 2013; the first Flight Test Vehicle (FTV) was displayed in an almost completed state, along with three other FTVs in various states of assembly.[61][62] The 160-seat "Extra Capacity" version of the CS300, featuring two sets of over wing emergency exits, was also presented.[61]
In a press release on 25 March 2013, Bombardier disclosed that the electrical system of the first flight test aircraft was successfully powered up and that tests on the static test airframe proceeded satisfactorily and on schedule.[63]
On 6 June 2013, Bombardier announced that Gulf Air ordered ten CS100s.[64]
In June 2013, due to upgrades of the aircraft's software and final ground testing, Bombardier shifted the timeline for the first flight into July 2013.[65] On 24 July 2013, Bombardier disclosed that, due to a longer than expected system integration process, the first flight will take place "in the coming weeks".[66]
On 30 August 2013, Bombardier received the flight test permit from Transport Canada, granting permission to perform high speed taxi testing and flight testing.[1] On Friday, September 13, 2013, Bombardier set the first flight for Monday, September 16, 2013 “pending optimal weather conditions and aircraft readiness.”[67]
On September 16, 2013, the CS100 took its maiden flight for the first time, making the inaugural flight of the CSeries, from Mirabel Airport north of Montreal, Quebec, Canada, accompanied by a Global 5000 chase plane.[68][69]
Design
The Bombardier CSeries aircraft will contain a high usage of composite materials and larger windows.[70] The CSeries cabin will feature large, rotating overhead storage bins, allowing each passenger to stow a sizeable carry-on bag overhead.[70] Compared to the cabins of current in-service narrowbody aircraft, the CSeries is to provide airlines with the highest overhead bin volume per passenger and a wider aisle that would allow for faster boarding and disembarkation of passengers.[70]
The CSeries aircraft contain 70% advanced materials comprising 46% composite materials and 24% aluminium-lithium which allows for a 15% lower seat-mile cost and a significant reduction in maintenance costs.[71] Computer software design tools were used on the project, including CATIA, HyperSizer, and similar technology that was employed in the Learjet 85 programme.[72]
Orders and deliveries
Net orders (cumulative by year)
As of 30 June 2013[73][74]
See also: List of Bombardier CSeries orders
The Bombardier CSeries family of aircraft has the following firm orders, as of 30 June 2013:[73][74]
CS100 CS300 Total firm orders
63 114 177
Orders and deliveries by year[74]
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
Net orders 0 50 40 43 15 29177
Deliveries − − − − − −−
Specifications
CS100CS300
Cockpit crew 2 pilots
Cabin crew 2 to 5 flight attendants 3 to 5 flight attendants
Passengers 125 (1-class, dense)
110 (1-class, standard)
108 (2-class, mixed) 160 (1-class, extra capacity)
150 (1-class, dense)
135 (1-class, standard)
130 (2-class, mixed)
Seat Pitch 28 in (71 cm) (1-class, extra capacity)
30 in (76 cm) (1-class, dense)
32 in (81 cm) (1-class, standard)
36 in (91 cm) & 32 in (81 cm) (2-class, mixed)
Seat Width 19 in (48 cm)
Length 35.0 m (114.8 ft) 38.7 m (127 ft)
Wingspan 35.1 m (115 ft)
Wing Area (net) 112.3 m2 (1,209 sq ft)
Tail height 11.5 m (38 ft)
Fuselage max diameter 3.7 m (12 ft)
Cabin width 3.28 metres (129 in)
Cabin height 2.11 metres (83 in)
Cabin length 23.7 metres (78 ft) 27.5 metres (90 ft)
Cargo Volume 23.7 m3 (840 cu ft) 31.6 m3 (1,120 cu ft)
Max takeoff weight 58,967 kg (130,000 lb) 65,317 kg (144,000 lb)
Max landing weight 50,802 kg (112,000 lb) 57,606 kg (127,000 lb)
Maximum cargo payload 3,629 kg (8,000 lb) 4,853 kg (10,700 lb)
Maximum payload (total) 14,583 kg (32,150 lb) 18,552 kg (40,900 lb)
Max range 5,463 km (2,950 nmi)
Max cruise speed Mach 0.82 (870 km/h, 470 kn, 541 mph)
Typical cruise speed Mach 0.78 (828 km/h, 447 kn, 514 mph)
Take off run at MTOW 1,463 m (4,800 ft) 1,890 m (6,200 ft)
Landing field length at MLW 1,356 m (4,449 ft) 1,494 m (4,902 ft)
Service ceiling 12,497 m (41,001 ft)
Engines 2× Pratt & Whitney PW1500G
Thrust per Engine 84.1 kN (18,900 lbf) – PW1519G
93.4 kN (21,000 lbf) – PW1521G
103.6 kN (23,300 lbf) – PW1524G 93.4 kN (21,000 lbf) – PW1521G
103.6 kN (23,300 lbf) – PW1524G
Bombardier released the following performance specifications, regarding operations from urban airports with short runways and steep approaches, like London City Airport andToronto Island Airport.
Urban Operations
CS100CS300
Max takeoff weight 53,060 kg (117,000 lb) 58,967 kg (130,000 lb)
Max landing weight 49,895 kg (110,000 lb) 55,111 kg (121,500 lb)
Maximum cargo payload 3,629 kg (8,000 lb) 4,853 kg (10,700 lb)
Maximum payload (total) 13,676 kg (30,150 lb) 16,284 kg (35,900 lb)
Max range 2,778 km (1,500 nmi)
Take off run at MTOW 1,219 m (3,999 ft) 1,524 m (5,000 ft)
Landing field length at MLW 1,341 m (4,400 ft) 1,448 m (4,751 ft)
Notes: Data are preliminary and may change.
Sources: Bombardier Aerospace[29][75][76][77] and Pratt & Whitney[78]
See also]Aviation portal
Canada portal
In blue the CSeries, in grey similar in-production aircraft and in orange similar in project-phase aircraft.Related development
Bombardier CRJ700/900/1000
Comac C919 (agreement between Comac and Bombardier for program commonalities)[79]
Irkut MS-21 (agreement between Irkut and Bombardier for joint customer support)[80]Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era
Airbus A320neo
Boeing 737 MAX
Embraer E-Jets/E-Jets E2
Kawasaki YPX
Mitsubishi Regional Jet
Sukhoi Superjet 100/130Related lists
List of civil aircraft
References[edit source | editbeta]
^ Jump up to:a b Bombardier Inc. (30 August 2013). "Bombardier CSeries Aircraft Awarded Transport Canada Flight Test Permit".
Jump up^ Stephen Trimble (1 August 2013). "Bombardier to reopen entry into service plan for CSeries". flightglobal.com.
Jump up^ Solarina Ho (7 March 2013). "Bombardier unveils high-stakes CSeries jetliner".Reuters. Retrieved 11 March 2013.
Jump up^ Transport Canada. "List of Approved Special Conditions - Airworthiness".
Jump up^ A New Bombardier Jet Draws Only Tepid Demand Jet New York Times, July 14, 2008.
Jump up^ (French) LCN network, "Mario Dumont" show, circa 10:20am EDT, airdate 16/09/2013
Jump up^ "Bombardier Ends Talks With Fokker". allbusiness.com
^ Jump up to:a b "Bombardier Plans New Jetliner", Wall Street Journal, 14 July 2008, p. B3
Jump up^ Tomesco, Frederic (9 November 2009). "Bombardier’s Beaudoin Sees Further Aerospace Cutbacks (Update2)". Bloomberg.
Jump up^ "Bombardier selects Canadian site for jet assembly plant". Kansas City Business Journal. 13 July 2008.
Jump up^ "Bombardier unveils 'greenest' passenger jet". CanWest News Service. canada.com. 14 July 2008.
Jump up^ "Bombardier". Bombardier.se. 8 September 2011.
Jump up^ "Bombardier Shelves $2.1 Billion Aircraft Program (Update6)". Bloomberg. 31 January 2006.
Jump up^ "CSeries Program Update". Bombardier.com.
Jump up^ "Bombardier opts for geared turbofan for CSeries". Flight International. 12 November 2007.
Jump up^ "Bombardier Grants Authority to Offer CSeries". Bombardier.com.
Jump up^ "Bombardier Launches CSeries Aircraft Program". Retrieved 13 July 2008.
Jump up^ "Bombardier awards contract to Ghafari to redevelop CSeries Aircraft Manufacturing Complex". ATW Online. 16 August 2010. Retrieved 16 August 2010.
Jump up^ "Bombardier Selects Rockwell Collins Pro Line Fusion(TM) for CSeries". Retrieved 15 July 2008.
Jump up^ Shalom, François (15 October 2009). "Boeing bristles over CSeries". The Gazette(Montreal).
Jump up^ "Bombardier Launches CSeries". Aviation Today. 17 July 2008.
Jump up^ "Bombardier officially begins construction of Belfast CSeries site". Flight International. 17 November 2009.
Jump up^ "PICTURE: Mongolia's Eznis signs letter of interest for CSeries". Flight International. 9 January 2009. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
Jump up^ "CSeries talks 'in the freezer': Qatar Airways". Flight International. 10 March 2009.
Jump up^ "CSeries questions remain despite Lufthansa firm deal". Flight International. 12 March 2009.
Jump up^ Ionides, Nicholas. "Lufthansa board approves order for 30 CSeries aircraft". Air Transport Intelligence news, 11 March 2009.
Jump up^ Kirby, Mary (11 March 2009). "Bombardier makes tweaks to CSeries specs". Air Transport Intelligence news.
Jump up^ Bombardier (January 2009). "Bombardier CSeries Factsheet". Retrieved 23 April 2013.
^ Jump up to:a b Bombardier. "Bombardier CSeries brochure". Retrieved 7 March 2013.
Jump up^ Lessor LCI orders 20 CSeries including first CS300s. Retrieved 17 April 2009.
Jump up^ "International Aircraft Leasing| Key Facts". LCI Aviation.
Jump up^ "Talk of 150-seat CSeries in the fray following analyst report". Flight International. 6 January 2010.
Jump up^ "ATI: Republic orders 40 CSeries and options 40 more". Flight International. 25 February 2010.
Jump up^ Airbus Weighs Costs, Rivals’ Advances in Engine Upgrade Choice – Businessweek
Jump up^ UAL Considers CSeries To Replace 737s. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 10 December 2009
Jump up^ Toronto Aerospace (1 June 2011). "Corporate > Media Centre > Press Releases". Bombardier.com.
Jump up^ Keenan, Greg (7 June 2011). "Bombardier books new order for C-series jets". The Globe and Mail (Toronto).
Jump up^ Susanna Ray and Rachel Layne (20 June 2011). "Bombardier CSeries Gets Deal While Qatar Goes on Hold". Bloomberg.
Jump up^ "Korean Air to Acquire up to 30 Bombardier CSeries Aircraft". Reuters. 21 June 2011.
Jump up^ "Korean Air Converts Letter of Intent to Firm Order for Bombardier CSeries Aircraft". Bombardier. 29 July 2011. Retrieved 14 April 2012.
Jump up^ Gates, Dominic (24 June 2011). "Bombardier's new CSeries: hanging in there at the Paris Air Show". The Seattle Times.
Jump up^ "MAKS: Ilyushin Finance plans to take up to 30 CSeries". Flight International. 17 August 2011.
Jump up^ "Bombardier inks deal to sell ten CSeries jets to Turkish airline". 15 November 2011.
Jump up^ "airBaltic" jaunās lidmašīnas iegādāsies no "Bombardier". 10 June 2012.
Jump up^ "SkyWest’s MRJ Pact Heads For Firm Order". AW&ST, 23 July 2012.
Jump up^ "Bombardier ends order drought for CSeries jet". 20 December 2012.
Jump up^ "Majority of CSeries supplier contracts already awarded". Flight International. 1 June 2009.
Jump up^ "Bombardier – China". Cn.bombardier.com.
Jump up^ Scott Deveau (7 March 2012). "First flight of Bombardier CSeries set for December – or January". Financial Post. Retrieved 14 April 2012.
Jump up^ "CSeries poised for design freeze as joint definition phase concludes". Flight International. 27 January 2010.
Jump up^ "CSeries ‘On Track’ for First Flight in Second-Half of 2012". AINonline.
^ Jump up to:a b "Bombardier's Beaudoin still upbeat on CSeries". The Vancouver Sun. 13 June 2012. Retrieved 13 June 2012.
Jump up^ "UPDATE 1-Bombardier satisfied with C-Series orders, CEO says". Reuters.
Jump up^ "FARNBOROUGH: AirAsia boss confirms talks for 100 CSeries CS300". Flightglobal.
Jump up^ Stephen Trimble. "Bombardier moves CS300 into detailed design with high-density variant included". Flightglobal.com.
^ Jump up to:a b Bombardier Inc. (7 November 2012). "Bombardier Announces Financial Results for the Third Quarter Ended September 30, 2012". Retrieved 21 December 2012.
Jump up^ Bombardier Inc. "Russia's Ilyushin Finance Co. Signs Purchase Agreement for up to 42 Bombardier CSeries Aircraft".
Jump up^ Bombardier Inc. "Transport Canada Certifies Pratt & Whitney PurePower® PW1500G Engine for Bombardier CSeries Aircraft".
Jump up^ "Bombardier CSeries Program Update - Bombardier Aerospace Events".Bombardier Inc.
Jump up^ "Bombardier Announces Financial Results for the Fourth Quarter and the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2012". Bombardier Inc.
^ Jump up to:a b "CSeries Aircraft Program Making Excellent Progress Towards First Flight". Bombardier Inc. 7 March 2013. Retrieved 8 March 2013.
Jump up^ "Bombardier reveals C Series seat capacity increase".
Jump up^ "Bombardier Powers On the First CSeries Flight Test Vehicle and Completes Wing Static Testing Required for First Flight". Bombardier Inc. 25 March 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2013.
Jump up^ "Gulf Air to buy CSeries jets, says Bombardier". Saudi Gazette. 6 June 2013. Retrieved 6 June 2013.
Jump up^ "Bombardier Completes CSeries Aircraft Ground Vibration Tests and Final Software Upgrades In Preparation for First Flight". 26 June 2013.
Jump up^ "Bombardier CSeries Aircraft First Flight to Take Place in the Coming Weeks". 24 July 2013.
Jump up^ François Shalom. "CSeries to take flight on Monday". The Gazette. Postmedia Network. Retrieved 14 September 2013.
Jump up^ (French) DIRECT LCN, network LCN, circa 10:00am EDT, airdate 2013-09-16
Jump up^ (French) Dernière Heure, network RDI, circa 10:00am EDT, airdate 2013-09-16
^ Jump up to:a b c "Aerospace > Products > Commercial Aircraft > CSeries". Bombardier.com.
Jump up^ "Aerospace > Products > Commercial Aircraft > CSeries". Bombardier.com.
Jump up^ Karen Wood (1 November 2010). "Learjet 85 composite pressurized cabin a cost cutter". Composites World. High-Performance Composites. Retrieved 22 August 2011.
^ Jump up to:a b "Bombardier CSeries program status report". June 30, 2013.
^ Jump up to:a b c Orders by year:
2009
Bombardier Inc. (11 March 2009). "Lufthansa Group Signs Purchase Agreement with Bombardier for up to 60 CSeries Aircraft". Retrieved 18 May 2012.
Bombardier Inc. (30 March 2009). "Lease Corporation International Group Orders 20 Bombardier CSeries Jetliners with Options to Purchase a Further 20". Retrieved 18 May 2012.
2010
Bombardier Inc. (25 February 2010). "Republic Airways Holdings Becomes First North American Customer for Bombardier CSeries Aircraft with Order for up to 80 Airliners". Retrieved 18 May 2012.
2011
Bombardier Inc. (1 June 2011). "Bombardier Sells 10 CSeries Jetliners to Sweden's Braathens Aviation". Retrieved 18 May 2012.
Bombardier Inc. (7 June 2011). "Airline Places Order for Up to Six Bombardier CSeries Aircraft". Retrieved 18 May 2012.
Bombardier Inc. (20 June 2011). "Major Network Carrier Places Firm Order for 10 CSeries Aircraft; Will Take First CS100 Aircraft Delivery". Retrieved 18 May 2012.
Bombardier Inc. (24 June 2011). "Eighth Customer Places Firm Order for 10 CSeries Aircraft". Retrieved 18 May 2012.
Bombardier Inc. (29 July 2011). "Korean Air Converts Letter of Intent to Firm Order for Bombardier CSeries Aircraft". Retrieved 18 May 2012.
2012
Bombardier Inc. (19 January 2012). "Bombardier Signs PrivatAir for up to 10 CSeries Aircraft". Retrieved 18 May 2012.
Bombardier Inc. (20 December 2012). "airBaltic Signs Firm Order for up to 20 CSeries Airliners". Retrieved 20 December 2012.
2013
"Russia's Ilyushin Finance Co. Firms Purchase Agreement for up to 42 Bombardier CSeries Aircraft". June 4, 2013. Retrieved June 4, 2013.
Jump up^ Bombardier. "Bombardier CS100". Retrieved 7 March 2013.
Jump up^ Bombardier. "Bombardier CS300". Retrieved 7 March 2013.
Jump up^ "Bombardier CSeries page". Bombardier.com.
Jump up^ Pratt & Whitney. "PurePower PW1500G Engine for the Bombardier CSeries". Retrieved 18 December 2012.
Jump up^ Bombardier Inc. (21 March 2012). "COMAC and Bombardier Sign Definitive Agreement to Establish Commonality Opportunities Between C919 and CSeries Aircraft". Retrieved 13 September 2013.
Jump up^ Bombardier Inc. (28 August 2013). "Bombardier, IRKUT Entering Exploratory Discussions on Customer Support for the MS-21 Aircraft". Retrieved 13 September 2013.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Vita Health recalls numerous Over-the-counter products because of labelling errors
Vita Health recalls numerous Over-the-counter products because of labelling errors
- Starting date:
- September 6, 2013
- Posting date:
- September 13, 2013
- Type of communication:
- Information Update
- Subcategory:
- Drugs
- Source of recall:
- Health Canada
- Issue:
- Labelling and Packaging
- Audience:
- General Public
- Identification number:
- RA-35525
Issue
Health Canada wishes to inform Canadians that Vita Health Products Inc. has voluntarily recalled a variety of health products from the Canadian market because of labelling issues. The recalled products pose a risk to health because the labels contain errors such as suggesting packages are child resistant when they are not, or are missing warning statements for consumers with allergies or existing medical conditions.The products include “over-the-counter” and a natural health product such as anti-inflammatory, cold and flu, allergy and sinus, and acetaminophen medications.
Vita Health is reviewing its product labels and putting actions in place to address the labelling issues. Health Canada has not received any information suggesting the quality of the products on the list below is affected.
If you have used or purchased a Vita Health product and are concerned about its impact on your health, please consult your healthcare practitioner. Consumers are also encouraged to return the product to the place of purchase or call Vita Health at 1-800-665-8820, Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. EDT for further instruction.
Health Canada is monitoring the recalls by Vita Health and will continue to provide updates to Canadians as warranted. Canadians can monitor the table below for additions to the list of recalled products. The table includes a complete list of products recalled by Vita Health to date.
| Product | Labelling Error | At Risk Population | Date of Recall |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personnelle Cold and Flu-in-One Extra Strength Convenience Pack | Missing reference to important information | General population | September 12, 2013 |
| Personnelle Ultra Headache Relief | Missing warning statement in French | General population | September 9, 2013 |
| Missing reference to important information | General population | September 5, 2013 | |
| Personnelle Cold and Flu-in-One Extra Strength | Missing reference to important information | General population | August 20, 2013 |
| Personnelle Flu Relief | Missing reference to important information | General population | August 20, 2013 |
| Exact Extra Strength Allergy Sinus Medication | Missing warning statement | People with chronic lung disease | August 16, 2013 |
| Rexall Extra Strength Allergy Sinus Medication | Missing warning statement | People with chronic lung disease | August 16, 2013 |
| Tanta Extra Strength Allergy Sinus Medication | Missing warning statement | People with chronic lung disease | August 16, 2013 |
| Life Extra Strength Allergy Sinus | Missing warning statement | People with chronic lung disease | August 13, 2013 |
| Safeway and Compliments Ibuprofen Liquid Capsules | Packaging suggests product is child resistant | Children | July 29, 2013 |
| Compliments Iron Ferrous Gluconate | At least one bottle of Iron Ferrous Sulphate was labelled as Iron Ferrous Gluconate | People with an allergy to sulphate | July 25, 2013 |
| Pharmasave Extra Strength Allergy Sinus Medication | Missing caution statement in French | General Public | July 22, 2013 |
| Exact Cold Medication | Missing caution statement in French | General Public | July 22, 2013 |
| London Drugs Acetaminophen 300 mg with 15 mg caffeine and 8 mg codeine | Missing caution statement | General Public | July 22, 2013 |
| Extra Strength Cold and Flu-In-One | Missing caution statement | Children | July 22, 2013 |
| Selection Extra Strength Flu Relief Daytime | Missing caution statement in French | General Public | July 22, 2013 |
| Option+ Extra Strength Flu Relief Daytime | Missing caution statement in French | General Public | July 22, 2013 |
| Rexall Extra Strength Flu Relief Daytime | Missing caution statement in French | General Public | July 22, 2013 |
| Western Family Extra Strength Cold and Flu-In-One | Missing warning statement | Children | July 22, 2013 |
| Safeway Extra Strength Ibuprofen | Packaging suggests product is child resistant | Children | June 5, 2013 |
| Compliments Extra Strength Acetaminophen Gelcaps | Packaging suggests product is child resistant | Children | April 16, 2012 |
| Biomedic Ultra Headache Relief | English panel missing the ingredient caffeine | General Public | November 30, 2012 |
| Compliments Muscle and Back Pain Relief Regular Strength | French dosing directions | Children | December 29, 2011 |
Report health or safety concerns
How to report side effects to health products to Health Canada:- Call toll-free at 1-866-234-2345
- Visit MedEffect Canada's web page on Adverse Reaction Reporting for information on how to report online, by mail or by fax.
Media enquiries
Health Canada(613) 957-2983
Public enquiries
(613) 957-29911-866 225-0709
For more information
Complaints involving labelling errors associated with Vita Health products can be reported to Health Canada by calling the toll-free hotline at 1-800-267-9675, or by writing to:
Complaints involving labelling errors associated with Vita Health products can be reported to Health Canada by calling the toll-free hotline at 1-800-267-9675, or by writing to:
Health Products and Food Branch
Inspectorate
Health Canada
Address Locator: 2003C
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9
E-mail: DCVIU_UVECM@hc-sc.gc.ca
Fax: 613-946-5636
Health Canada
Address Locator: 2003C
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9
E-mail: DCVIU_UVECM@hc-sc.gc.ca
Fax: 613-946-5636
Thursday, September 12, 2013
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) has issued safety advisory letters toTransport Canada and the United States Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration with respect to its ongoing investigation into the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA) train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Québec, on 6 July 2013. The TSB is calling on the regulators to review the processes for suppliers and companies transporting or importing dangerous goods to ensure the properties of the goods
TSB calls on Canadian and U.S. regulators to ensure properties of dangerous goods are accurately determined and documented for safe transportation
Ottawa, Ontario, 11 September 2013 — The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) has issued safety advisory letters toTransport Canada and the United States Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration with respect to its ongoing investigation into the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway (MMA) train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Québec, on 6 July 2013. The TSB is calling on the regulators to review the processes for suppliers and companies transporting or importing dangerous goods to ensure the properties of the goods are accurately determined and documented for safe transportation.
TSB test results indicate that the level of hazard posed by the petroleum crude oil transported in the tank cars on the accident train was not accurately documented. Petroleum crude oil is classified as a Class 3 Dangerous Good (flammable liquid), and is further divided into packing groups (PG) to further categorize its hazards (PG I being most hazardous, to PG III being least hazardous). In analysing product samples from the 9 intact tank cars from the Lac-Mégantic accident, the TSB identified the product as having the characteristics of a Dangerous Good of Class 3, PG II product. However, the product was offered for transport, packaged, and transported as a Class 3, PG III product, which represented it as a lower hazard, less volatile flammable liquid.
The lower flash point of the crude oil explains in part why it ignited so quickly once the Class 111 tank cars were breached. Since product characteristics are one of the factors when selecting a container, this also brings into question the adequacy of Class 111 tanks cars for use in transporting large quantities of low flash flammable liquids (PG I and PG II). The TSB investigation in this area is ongoing. Further tests are being done on the product samples and testing has started on the components of the tank cars. A review of the relevant regulations and company operating practices is also underway. These analyses will help determine the safety performance of the tank cars during the accident and to identify any related safety deficiencies
The Lac-Mégantic train derailment remains a priority for the TSB and a team of experts continues to be dedicated to this investigation. If at any stage during the investigation the TSB identifies additional safety deficiencies, it will communicate directly with regulators and the industry, and will inform the public.
Visit the active investigation page for more information about this investigation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)