Cook et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Environmental Protection), (1999) 241 A.R. 25 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 17, 1999
• Citations: (1999), 241 A.R. 25 (QB)

Cook v. Alta. (1999), 241 A.R. 25 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] A.R. TBEd. MR.098

Donald Cook and Eva Sarty (applicants) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (as represented by the Minister of Environmental Protection) (respondent)

(Action No. 9803 12724)

Indexed As: Cook et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Environmental Protection)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

February 26, 1999.

Summary:

The applicants sought approval to open a campground on public land that was subject to a forest management agreement between the Alberta government and Sunpine Forest Products Ltd (Sunpine). Sunpine refused to consent to the granting of a lease to the applicants. Alberta Environmental Protection cancelled the applicants' lease application. The applicants requested the Minister to exercise his discretion to withdraw the land from the agreement. The Minister advised the applicants to appeal and that the Appeal Committee would make a final land use decision regarding their application. The Appeal Committee recommended the grant­ing of a recreational lease and the with­drawal of the land. The Minister rejected the recommendation. The applicants applied for an order requiring the Minister to give them a lease.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dis­missed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 2267

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Reasonable expectation or legitimate ex­pectation - Applicants applied to lease public land that was subject to a forest manage­ment agreement between the Alberta gov­ernment and Sunpine - The Minister of Environmental Protection cancelled the lease application - The applicants re­quested the Minister to exer­cise his discre­tion to withdraw the land from the agree­ment - The Minister advised the applicants to appeal and that the Appeal Committee would make a final land use decision - The Committee rec­ommended allowing the application - The Minister rejected the recommendation - The appli­cants sought judicial review, asserting that they had a legitimate expec­tation that the Committee would make a final decision - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the asser­tion - The Minister's discretion was not delegable - The doc­trine of legitimate expectations did not apply where the ap­plicants were seek­ing a substantive remedy - See paragraphs 46 to 48.

Administrative Law - Topic 3510

Judicial review - Mandamus - General - Review of exercise of discretionary power - Applicants applied to lease public land that was subject to a forest management agreement between the Alberta government and Sunpine - The Minister of Environ­mental Protection cancelled the lease ap­plication - The Minister refused the appli­cants' request to withdraw the land from the management agreement - The appli­cants appealed - The Appeal Committee recommended allowing the application - The Minister rejected the recommendation - The applicants applied for an order requiring the Minister to lease the land to them - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that mandamus was not an appropriate remedy - Even if the Minister had improperly exercised his discretion, the remedy would typically be to return the matter for reconsideration - The court could not force the Minister to exercise his discretion in a particular way - Addi­tionally, the Committee's recommen­dation was not a decision - See paragraphs 60 to 65.

Administrative Law - Topic 3589

Judicial review - Mandamus - Bars - Discretionary power - [See Administra­tive Law - Topic 3510 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3705

Judicial review - Mandamus - Mandamus to government and executive - Ministers of the Crown - [See Administrative law - Topic 3510 ].

Crown - Topic 704

Authority of Ministers - Delegation of - Nondelegable matters - Applicants applied to lease public land that was subject to a forest management agreement between the Alberta government and Sunpine - The Minister of Environmental Protection can­celled the lease application - The appli­cants requested the Minister to exer­cise his discretion to withdraw the land from the agreement - The Minister advised the applicants to appeal and that the Appeal Committee would make a final land use decision - The Committee rec­ommended allowing the application - The Minister rejected the recommendation - The appli­cants sought judicial review, asserting that the Minister delegated his discretion to the Committee - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that there was no delegation where the Minister lacked statutory power to do so; the Com­mittee included non­departmental members; a discretion could not be delegated; the Committee was not a formal body; and the Committee did not accept the delegation - See paragraphs 38 to 45.

Crown - Topic 706

Authority of Ministers - Delegation of - What constitutes delegation - [See Crown - Topic 704 ].

Estoppel - Topic 30

General principles - Representations acted on by representee to his prejudice - Applicants applied to lease public land that was subject to a forest management agree­ment between the Alberta government and Sunpine - The Minister of Environmental Protection cancelled the lease application - The applicants requested the Minister to exercise his discretion to withdraw the land from the agreement - The Minister advised the applicants to appeal and that the Appeal Committee would make a final land use decision - The Committee rec­ommended allowing the application - The Minister rejected the recommendation - The applicants sought an order requiring the Minister to lease the land - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench raised the issue of promissory estoppel, stating that if there was a promise that the Committee's decision would be final, the applicants would only be entitled to damages result­ing from detrimental reliance - In any event, reliance was not established - See paragraphs 49 to 51.

Cases Noticed:

Battelley v. Finsbury Borough Council (1958), 56 L.G.R. 165 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

Blackpool Corp. v. Locker, [1948] 1 K.B. 349 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Campeau Corp. v. Calgary (City) (1978), 12 A.R. 31; 7 Alta. L.R.(2d) 294 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 11].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplin­ary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 106 D.L.R.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 11].

Multi-Malls Inc. et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation and Communications) et al. (1976), 73 D.L.R.(3d) 18 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

National Anti-Poverty Organization et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1989), 99 N.R. 181; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 712 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Padfield v. Canada (Minister of Agricul­ture, Fisheries and Food), [1968] 2 W.L.R. 924 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Padfield v. Canada (Minister of Agricul­ture, Fisheries and Food), [1968] 1 All E.R. 694 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 11].

Pulp, Paper and Woodworks of Canada, Local 8 et al. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture) (1994), 174 N.R. 37 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Smith & Rhuland Ltd. (ex rel. Andres), Re - see Labour Relations Board (N.S.), Re.

Labour Relations Board (N.S.), Re, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 95, refd to. [para. 11].

Smith v. Vanier (1973), 30 D.L.R.(3d) 386 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Board of Education of Toronto v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation District 15 et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487; 208 N.R. 245; 98 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 11].

Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. R. - see Irving Oil Ltd., Kent Lines Ltd. and Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. National Harbours Board.

Irving Oil Ltd., Kent Lines Ltd. and Thorne's Hardware Ltd. v. National Harbours Board, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 106; 46 N.R. 91; 143 D.L.R.(3d) 577, refd to. [para. 11].

Reese et al. v. Alberta (Minister of For­estry, Lands and Wildlife) et al. (1992), 123 A.R. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Ser­vice Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 12].

Alberta Cement Corp. v. Alberta Environ­mental Protection (1997), 207 A.R. 175 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan Act - see Reference Re Constitutional Ques­tion Act (B.C.).

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; [1991] 6 W.W.R. 1; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 297, refd to. [para. 12].

Alberta v. Public Service Grievance Appeal Board, Alberta Union of Provin­cial Employees and Pool (1983), 45 A.R. 195 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Nova, An Alberta Corp. v. Guelph Engin­eering Co. et al. and Daniel Valve Co. et al. (1989), 100 A.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Wilman v. Northwest Territories (Com­missions), [1997] N.W.T.J. No. 17 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Karavos v. Toronto (City), [1948] 3 D.L.R. 294 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Ahmad v. College of Physicians and Sur­geons (B.C.) (1971), 18 D.L.R.(3d) 197 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Ho v. Minister of Employment and Immi­gration (1994), 88 F.T.R. 146 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Hamilton-Wentworth (Regional Munici­pality) v. Ontario (Minister of Transpor­tation) (1991), 46 O.A.C. 246; 2 O.R.(3d) 716 (Div. Ct.), leave to appeal refused (1991), 4 Admin. L.R.(2d) 226 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Saskatchewan Government Employees' Union et al. v. Saskatchewan et al. (1991), 96 Sask.R. 22; 1 Admin. L.R.(2d) 284 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Comeau's Sea Foods v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 12; 206 N.R. 363, refd to. [para. 14].

Chevron Canada Resources et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Energy) (1998), 222 A.R. 222 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 14].

Red Barn Bingo Association v. Gaming and Liquor Commission (Alta.), [1998] A.J. No. 1422 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 14].

Bendahmane v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1989] 3 F.C. 16; 95 N.R. 385; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 313 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Browns and Evans, Judicial Review of Administrative Actions in Canada (1998), pp. 1-39, 7-26, 7-63 [para. 12].

Evans, de Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action (5th Ed. 1985), generally [para. 11].

Hogg, Peter W., Liability of the Crown (2nd Ed. 1989), pp. 36, 37, 38, 39 [para. 13].

Jones and de Villars, Principles of Admin­istrative Law (2nd Ed. 1994), generally [para. 11].

Wade, H.W.R., Administrative Law (6th Ed. 1988), p. 364 [para. 13].

Counsel:

Karen M. Trace, for the applicants;

D.J. Wilson and C.H. McNeal, for the Government of Alberta;

B.K. O'Ferrall and Ashley Evans, for Sunpine Forest Products Ltd.

Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, heard this application at Edmonton, Alberta on February 17, 1999, and delivered the fol­lowing memorandum of decision on Febru­ary 26, 1999.