Airport Roads, Private Property, and Federal Control: Manitoba Court Reinforces Airport Authority Powers

In Peg City Limo Corporation v. Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc., 2026 MBKB 8, the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench reaffirmed a foundational principle of Canadian aviation law: roadways located on federal airport lands are not public highways, but private, federally controlled infrastructure.

The dispute arose from competing injunction applications involving unlicensed commercial taxi operations at Winnipeg International Airport and clarifies the limits of public access on airport property.

This decision is particularly timely for airports, commercial operators, and municipalities navigating the boundaries between federal airport governance and provincial road regimes. Below, we unpack the case, its outcome, the underlying federal framework, and the broader policy and jurisprudential landscape.

The Case - Peg City Limo

Peg City Limo, an unlicensed commercial transportation provider, had been operating in the passenger pick‑up lanes at Winnipeg International Airport. The Winnipeg Airports Authority (“WAA”) sought an interlocutory injunction to stop Peg City’s operations; Peg City sought its own injunction preventing WAA from issuing trespass notices or interfering with its activities.

The Court granted WAA’s injunction and dismissed Peg City’s. In doing so, the Court found that:

• All airport roadways, including the main pick‑up lane, are private roads even though they are open to public use;

• Peg City’s commercial operations without a WAA‑issued licence constituted both tortious trespass and statutory trespass under Manitoba’s Trespass Act;

• Public access does not create a public right‑of‑way, nor does it convert airport roadways into “public roads” in any legal sense;

• WAA established irreparable harm. Weakening WAA’s ability to regulate traffic and commercial activity would undermine safety, operations, and the integrity of its licensing system; and

• Peg City did not establish irreparable harm. Claims of severe economic impacts were unsupported.

The final order strictly prohibited Peg City from operating commercial transportation services anywhere on the Airport Property, subject only to personal‑use exceptions.

Federal Framework Governing Airport Roads

The legal foundation of this case rests on the federal character of airport lands and the federal regulatory regime governing their use.

The airport is owned by the federal Crown and leased to WAA. The lease grants WAA exclusive control of airport lands. Under the Aeronautics Act, the Minister of Transport may designate airport authorities to operate federal airports, and WAA is one such designated authority.

Traffic on airport roads is governed by the Traffic on the Land Side of Airports Regulations. These regulations address vehicle movement, stopping, parking, commercial licensing, and speed control. Provincial highway statutes generally do not apply as airport roads have not been dedicated to the public and remain federally controlled access routes, although certain provincial rules may apply by incorporation or overlap in limited contexts.

For commercial operators, the implication is straightforward. The authority to decide who may conduct business on airport property flows from delegated federal power, not from provincial or municipal jurisdiction.

Policy Considerations Supporting Control

The Court’s reasoning extends beyond statutory interpretation. The decision is rooted in policy considerations that have long informed federal oversight of airports:

Safety and Security

Airports involve unique and layered safety considerations, and the risks are not confined to airside operations. The Court stressed that “every vehicle or pedestrian crossing the boundaries of the Airport Property represents a potential risk” and that restricting the airport’s control could have “catastrophic consequences.”

Equal Treatment of Commercial Operators

Allowing unlicensed operators to access curbside areas would undermine the licensed, fee‑supported system that funds airport operations. The Court warned that such an approach would create a “wild west” scenario and unfair competition for compliant operators.

Operational Order and Flow of Traffic

The Court highlighted the risk of unmanageable congestion and enforcement challenges if unlicensed operators could claim access rights. A court‑ordered exemption for a single operator would make airport traffic control practically unworkable.

Protecting Property Rights

Although airports function as public‑facing facilities, they remain private property. Owners may set conditions on entry, particularly when tied to safety and operational needs

The Jurisprudential Landscape: A Consistent Line of Authority

Justice Rempel’s reasons align with a consistent line of Canadian authority confirming that airport roads are private and federally regulated. Courts have repeatedly held that public access does not create public dedication, including decisions from Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta, and the Federal Court. This decision does not extend the doctrine but provides a clear and current synthesis of it.

1. R. v. Trabulsey, 1995 CanLII 1414 (ONCA), 22 O.R. (3d) 314 (1995)
   The Court of Appeal held that roadways at Toronto’s airport were not public highways, despite public access. Public use does not create public dedication.
2. Rex v. Red Line Ltd., 1930 CanLII 511 (ONCA), 66 O.L.R. 53 (1930)
   One of the earliest Canadian cases to articulate the principle that airports may admit or exclude traffic as they see fit, as no public dedication has occurred.
3. Airport Taxicab v. Minister of Transport, 1985 CanLII 5545 (FC), [1985] 2 F.C. 392 (1985)
   The Federal Court rejected a taxi company’s attempt to avoid federal regulation at Pearson Airport, holding that airport roadways are subject to federal authority and not public highways.
4. R. v. Roshanimeydan, 2013 NSSC 106 (2013)
   The Nova Scotia Supreme Court found that Halifax airport’s access roads were private, even though the provincial Motor Vehicle Act applied to the operation of vehicles on them. The underlying property remained federally controlled private land.
5. The Calgary Airport Authority v. Canadian Centre for Bio Ethical Reform, 2014 ABQB 493 (2014)
   The Alberta Court reaffirmed that government ownership does not create public access rights. “Public” ownership and “public” use are distinct concepts.

Together, these cases establish a consistent rule: airport roadways are private roads governed by federal law, regardless of the frequency or openness of public access. Justice Rempel’s decision does not expand this doctrine but provides a modern, comprehensive restatement of it.

---

Takeaways

Peg City Limo v. Winnipeg Airports Authority is a strong and straightforward affirmation of the principle that airport roadways in Canada are private, federally governed, and under the exclusive control of airport authorities. Operators who operate outside the licensing regime risk findings of trespass and injunctive relief.

For airports, the decision confirms the legal foundation for consistent enforcement of ground transportation rules. For operators, it is an important reminder that public‑facing access does not equal public entitlement, particularly on federally governed airport lands.

Never Miss Another Insight

Sign up for the Avra Law Newsletter to keep up-to-date on the issues important to you and your business.

Subscribe

Loading...

Thank you!

You have successfully joined our subscriber list.