Community Before Cars Coalition v. National Capital Commission, (1997) 135 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

• Judge: Muldoon, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 07, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 135 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

Com. Before Cars v. Nat. Capital Comm. (1997), 135 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.004

Community Before Cars Coalition (applicant) v. National Capital Commission (respondent)

(T-1830-96; T-2481-96; T-2865-96; T-2866-96)

Indexed As: Community Before Cars Coalition v. National Capital Commission

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Muldoon, J.

August 7, 1997.

Summary:

The National Capital Commission (NCC) made four decisions whose object was the widening of the Champlain Bridge between Ottawa and Aylmer-Hull from two to three lanes. The Community Before Cars Coalition, a coalition of community associations in western Ottawa who opposed the NCC's plan to widen the bridge, brought four applications for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the applications.

Administrative Law - Topic 2084

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Conflict of interest - Beaudry had been chairman of the National Capital Commission's board of commissioners and its chief executive officer since 1992 - Through his wife, he owned land three kilometres from the north end of the Champlain Bridge between Ottawa and Aylmer-Hull - The board of commissioners, after a lengthy decision-making process that culminated in 1996, made two non-unanimous decisions to widen the bridge - Beaudry did not participate in the decisions in order to avoid any appearance of bias - Opponents of the decisions alleged that Beaudry was in a conflict of interest and that his conflict biased the decisions even though he did not participate in them - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected this allegation - See paragraphs 51 to 74.

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Apprehension of - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2084 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2088.1

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Prejudgment of matter - The National Capital Commission decided to add a third lane to the Champlain Bridge between Ottawa and Aylmer-Hull - Opponents of the decision, purportedly focusing on an environmental assessment process, attacked the decision as predetermined - The opponents did not attack the results of the environmental assessment process itself but attempted to show that the Commission staff was independently committed to a three-lane bridge - The opponents attacked: (1) a consultant's evaluation methodology; (2) the "high risk" respecting one bridge option; (3) the failure to put a consultant's proposal before the commissioners; (4) the bridge's service life; (5) costing information; (6) failure to refer to a certain study; (7) comments made by a Commission staff member - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected the attack - See paragraphs 75 to 91.

Administrative Law - Topic 2267

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Reasonable expectation or legitimate expectation - [See second Pollution Control - Topic 1852 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2450

Natural justice - Procedure - Notice - Legitimate expectation of notice doctrine - [See second Pollution Control - Topic 1852 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9057.1

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - National Capital Commission - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the National Commission had jurisdiction to add a third lane to the Champlain Bridge over the Ottawa River between Ottawa, Ontario and Aylmer-Hull, Quebec - See paragraphs 39 to 50.

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - [See first Pollution Control - Topic 1852 ].

Pollution Control - Topic 1847

Environmental assessments or impact studies - Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order (Canadian Environmental Assessment Act) - Public review by a panel - The two-lane Champlain Bridge between Ottawa and Aylmer-Hull needed repairs - An environmental evaluation ordered by the National Capital Commission determined that potentially adverse environmental effects were "either insignificant or mitigable with known technology" - On September 3, 1996, the Commission adopted the environmental evaluation and issued an "intention of decision" to add a third lane to the bridge - On October 15, 1996, the Commission's decision became final and the project was not referred to a public review panel - Applicants for judicial review challenged the legality of the non-referral to a public review panel - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected this challenge - See paragraphs 128 to 136.

Pollution Control - Topic 1852

Environmental assessments or impact studies - Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order (Canadian Environmental Assessment Act) - Judicial review - The two-lane Champlain Bridge between Ottawa and Aylmer-Hull needed repairs - An environmental evaluation ordered by the National Capital Commission determined that potentially adverse environmental effects were "either insignificant or mitigable with known technology" - On September 3, 1996, the Commission adopted the environmental evaluation and issued an "intention of decision" to add a third lane to the bridge - On October 15, 1996, the Commission's decision became final - Applicants for judicial review questioned whether the September 3, 1996, "intention of decision" was made on objective, careful and complete information - The Commission replied that the applicants' objection was moot - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the applicants' objection was not moot, but rejected it - See paragraphs 92 to 100.

Pollution Control - Topic 1852

Environmental assessments or impact studies - Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order (Canadian Environmental Assessment Act) - Judicial review - The two-lane Champlain Bridge between Ottawa and Aylmer-Hull needed repairs - An environmental evaluation ordered by the National Capital Commission determined that potentially adverse environmental effects were "either insignificant or mitigable with known technology" - On September 3, 1996, the Commission adopted the environmental evaluation and issued an "intention of decision" to add a third lane to the bridge - On October 15, 1996, the Commission's decision became final - Applicants for judicial review argued that the public consultation process did not meet the necessary standard and that a legitimate expectation respecting an evaluation methodology was breached - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected this argument - See paragraphs 105 to 118.

Pollution Control - Topic 1852

Environmental assessments or impact studies - Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order (Canadian Environmental Assessment Act) - Judicial review - The two-lane Champlain Bridge between Ottawa and Aylmer-Hull needed repairs - An environmental evaluation ordered by the National Capital Commission determined that potentially adverse environmental effects were "either insignificant or mitigable with known technology" - On September 3, 1996, the Commission adopted the environmental evaluation and issued an "intention of decision" to add a third lane to the bridge - On October 15, 1996, the Commission's decision became final - Applicants for judicial review argued that the project had been "split" in that the environmental evaluation decision had not considered potential modification to an intersection so that it could accommodate more traffic - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected this argument - See paragraphs 119 to 127.

Pollution Control - Topic 1852

Environmental assessments or impact studies - Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order (Canadian Environmental Assessment Act) - Judicial review - The two-lane Champlain Bridge between Ottawa and Aylmer-Hull needed repairs - An environmental evaluation ordered by the National Capital Commission determined that potentially adverse environmental effects were "either insignificant or mitigable with known technology" - On September 3, 1996, the Commission adopted the environmental evaluation and issued an "intention of decision" to add a third lane to the bridge - On October 15, 1996, the Commission's decision became final - Applicants for judicial review challenged the legality of the October 15, 1996 final decision because it allegedly deferred the actual decision - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected this challenge - See paragraphs 137 to 143.

Cases Noticed:

Munro v. National Capital Commission, [1966] S.C.R. 663, consd. [para. 39].

Munro v. National Capital Commission, [1965] 2 Ex. C.R. 579, affd. [1966] S.C.R. 663, refd to. [para. 49].

Energy Probe v. Atomic Energy Control Board (Can.) and Ontario Hydro, [1985] 1 F.C. 563; 56 N.R. 135 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 52].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271, consd. [para. 53].

Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170; 116 N.R. 46; 69 Man.R.(2d) 134, consd. [para. 53].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 55].

Threader and Spinks v. Canada, [1987] 1 F.C. 41; 68 N.R. 143 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 65].

Canada (Treasury Board) v. Spinks and Threader (1987), 79 N.R. 375 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

Sparkes v. Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corp. (1994), 122 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 25; 379 A.P.R. 25 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 65].

Martineau v. Canada (1989), 31 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 86].

Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525; 127 N.R. 161; 1 B.C.A.C. 241; 1 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 90].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, consd. [para. 92].

Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al., [1995] 1 F.C. 588; 176 N.R. 48 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

Pharmacia Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) - see Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al.

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321, consd. [para. 95].

Union of Nova Scotia Indians et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1997] 1 F.C. 325; 122 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 95].

Canadian Wildlife Federation Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) and Saskatchewan Water Corp. (1989), 31 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), affd. [1991] 1 F.C. 641; 121 N.R. 385 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

Friends of the Island Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works) et al., [1993] 2 F.C. 229; 61 F.T.R. 4 (T.D.), consd. [para. 105].

Canadian Radio-Television Commission, Re (1976), 13 N.R. 292; 67 D.L.R.(3d) 267 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 105].

Québec (Procureur général) v. Office national de l'énergie, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 159; 163 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 122].

Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Local 8 et al. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture) et al. (1994), 174 N.R. 37 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 111].

Alberta Wilderness Association et al. v. Express Pipelines Ltd. et al. (1996), 201 N.R. 336 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 120].

Cantwell et al. v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) et al. (1991), 41 F.T.R. 18 (T.D.), consd. [para. 120].

Statutes Noticed:

Environment Act, Department of, Regulations (Can.), Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order, SOR/84-476, sect. 3, sect. 4(a), sect. 4(b), sect. 10(1), sect. 10(2), sect. 12(c), sect. 12(d), sect. 12(e), sect. 12(f), sect. 13, sect. 15(a) [para. 102].

Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order - see Environment Act, Department of, Regulations (Can.).

National Capital Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-4, sect. 10(1), sect. 10(2), sect. 11 [para. 42].

Authors and Works Noticed:

de Smith, S.A., Judicial Review of Administrative Action (5th Ed. 1995), p. 525 [para. 51].

Counsel:

Roger Harris and Howard Mann, for the applicant;

Joseph de Pencier and Yvonne Milosevic, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Lyon & Rick, Kanata, Ontario, for the applicant;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

These applications were heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 1, 2, 3, 8 and 10, 1997, by Muldoon, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision at Ottawa, Ontario, on August 7, 1997.