Federal Court Decisions

Date: 19971202

Docket: T-2354-97

BETWEEN:

     ALBERTA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION,

     CANADIAN NATURE FEDERATION, CANADIAN PARKS

     AND WILDERNESS SOCIETY, JASPER

     ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATION, AND PEMBINA

     INSTITUTE FOR APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT

     Applicants

     - and -

     MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS,

     BRIAN BIETZ, GORDON MILLER AND TOM BECK IN

     THEIR CAPACITY AS A REVIEW PANEL ESTABLISHED

     UNDER THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL

     ASSESSMENT ACT TO REVIEW THE CHEVIOT COAL

     PROJECT, AND CARDINAL RIVER COALS LTD.

     Respondents

     REASONS FOR ORDER

     [Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, Tuesday, December 2, 1997]

HUGESSEN J.

[1]      The Applicants have brought an Application for Judicial Review in which they describe the relief sought as follows:

1.      Declaring that the environmental assessment of the Cheviot coal project proposed by Cardinal River Coals Ltd., located south of Hinton, Alberta and including the construction, operation, and decommissioning of a coal processing plant, the development, operation, and reclamation of an open pit coal mine, the restoration of the Mountain Park subdivision rail line, upgrading of the existing access road into the Cheviot mine areas, and the installation of a new transmission line and substation to supply electrical power to the Cheviot mine (the "Project") conducted by the Review Panel for the Cheviot Coal Project (the "Review Panel") established under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ("CEAA") failed to comply with CEAA and with the "Agreement for the Chariot Coal Project" (including its terms of reference, schedule and appendix) dated October 24, 1996 (the "Agreement"), and is therefore invalid and unlawful;

2.      Declaring that the "Report of the EUB-CEAA Joint Review Panel, Cheviot Coal Project" dated June 6, 1997 and released publicly June 17, 1997 (the "Report") failed to comply with CEAA and the Agreement, and is therefore invalid and unlawful;

3      Declaring that the Review Panel erred in law and acted without jurisdiction in concluding its environmental assessment without having conducted an environmental assessment in accordance with CEAA and the Agreement;

4.      Quashing the Review Panel's environmental assessment and Report concerning the Project;

5.      Directing that the environmental assessment proceedings and Report of the Review Panel be referred back for further consideration and determination in accordance with such directions as the Court considers appropriate, and in particular in accordance with the legal requirements set out in CEAA and the Agreement;

6.      Prohibiting the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans ("MFO") from issuing any authorizations under the Fisheries Act , or taking any other action for the purpose of enabling the Project (or portion thereof) to proceed, until CEAA, the Agreement and all applicable federal legislation have been complied with;

7.      Quashing any authorizations or other forms of approval issued by the MFO for the Project (or portion thereof), should any have been issued prior to the Court deciding the present application;

8.      Requiring the MFO to ensure that the requirements of CEAA, the Agreement and all applicable federal legislation are complied with before issuing any authorizations under the Fisheries Act, or taking any other action for the purpose of enabling the Project (or portion thereof) to proceed.

[2]      The Respondents, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Cardinal River Coals Ltd. have each moved to strike out the Application. The Applicants have made a de bene esse motion to extend time or to amend if necessary.

[3]      In my view, the motions brought by the Respondents do not meet the very high threshold set by the Court of Appeal in Pharmacia.¹ In essence, the Respondents contend that the Applicants' Application for Judicial Review is out of time because it was filed well over 30 days after the Report of the Review Panel. It is very doubtful in my opinion that that report is a "decision or order" within the meaning of sub-section 18.1 (2) of the Federal Court Act.²

[4]      Rather I think that the Report should be seen as an essential statutory preliminary step required by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act³ prior to a decision by the Minister to issue an authorization under section 35 of the Fisheries Act.⁴

[5]      That decision has not yet been made and I think it is a fair reading of the Applicants' Originating Notice of Motion that it seeks primarily to prohibit the Minister from making it on the grounds that the Panel Report is fatally defective.

[6]      Prohibition (like mandamus and quo warranto) is a remedy specifically envisaged in section 18 of the Federal Court Act⁵ and like them it does not require that there be a decision or order actually in existence as a prerequisite to its exercise.

[7]      Thus, the fact is that the application was made more than 30 days after the Panel Report, but prior to any decision by the Minister, does not make it "so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success".⁶

[8]      The motions to strike will be dismissed with costs in the amount of $1,000.00 payable

---

by each Respondent in any event of the cause.

[9]      The Applicants' motion will be dismissed without costs.

     "James K. Hugessen"

     Hugessen J.

__________________

     ¹      Pharmarcia Inc. v. Minister of National Health & Welfare 58 C.P.R. (3d) at 209.

     ²      Section 18.1 (2) of the Federal Court Act reads as follows:

18.1 (2) An application for judicial review in respect of a decision or order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal shall be made within thirty days after the time the decision or order was first communicated by the federal board, commission or other tribunal to the office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada or to the party directly affected thereby, or within such further time as a judge of the Trial Division may, either before or after the expiration of those thirty days, fix or allow.

18.1 (2) Les demandes de contrôle judiciaire sont à présenter dans les trente jours qui suivent la première communication, par l'office fédéral, de sa décision ou de son ordonnance au bureau du sous-procureur général du Canada ou à la partie concernée, ou dans le délai supplémentaire qu'un juge de la Section de première instance peut, avant ou après l'expiration de ces trente jours, fixer ou accorder.

     ³      S.C. 1992, Chap. 37.

     ⁴      Section 35 of the Fisheries Act, R.S.C., c. F-14, reads as follows:

35. (1) No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. (2) No person contravenes subsection (1) by causing the alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat by any means or under any conditions authorized by the Minister or under regulations made by the Governor in Council under this Act.

35. (1) Il est interdit d'exploiter des ouvrages ou entreprises entraînant la détérioration, la destruction ou la perturbation de l'habitat du poisson. (2) Le paragraphe (1) ne s'applique pas aux personnes qui détériorent, détruisent ou perturbent l'habitat du poisson avec des moyens ou dans des circonstances autorisés par le ministre ou conformes aux règlements pris par le gouverneur en conseil en application de la présente loi.

     ⁵          Section 18 of the Federal Court Act reads as follows:

18. (1) Subject to section 28, the Trial Division has exclusive original jurisdiction      (a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and      (b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.      (2) The Trial Division has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine every application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition or writ of mandamus in relation to any member of the Canadian Forces serving outside Canada      (3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.

18. (1) Sous réserve de l'article 28, la Section de première instance a compétence exclusive, en première instance, pour :      a) décerner une injonction, un bref de certiorari, de mandamus, de prohibition ou de quo warranto, ou pour rendre un jugement déclaratoire contre tout office fédéral;      b) connaître de toute demande de réparation de la nature visée par l'alinéa a), et notamment de toute procédure engagée contre le procureur général du Canada afin d'obtenir réparation de la part d'un office fédéral.      2) La Section de première instance a compétence exclusive, en première instance, dans le cas des demandes suivantes visant un membre des Forces canadiennes en poste à l'étranger : bref d'habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, de certiorari, de prohibition ou de mandamus.      (3) Les recours prévus aux paragraphes (1) ou (2) sont exercés par présentation d'une demande de contrôle judiciaire.

     ⁶      Pharmacia Inc. (supra) at 217.