Corneil v. Transportation Appeal Tribunal (Can.) et al., (2015) 483 F.T.R. 36 (FC)

• Judge: Hughes, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 11, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 483 F.T.R. 36 (FC);2015 FC 755

Corneil v. Transportation Appeal Tribunal (2015), 483 F.T.R. 36 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.049

Trevor Anthony Corneil (applicant) v. Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada and Minister of Transport (respondents)

(T-31-15; 2015 FC 755)

Indexed As: Corneil v. Transportation Appeal Tribunal (Can.) et al.

Federal Court

Hughes, J.

June 16, 2015.

Summary:

The applicant applied for judicial review of a decision of a three-member panel of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal which dismissed his appeal from a decision of a one-member panel upholding a refusal by the Minister of Transport to issue him a civil aviation licence.

The Federal Court dismissed the application and awarded the respondents $2,500 costs, inclusive of all disbursements and taxes.

Administrative Law - Topic 9103

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Scope of review - [See first Aeronautics - Topic 2763 ].

Aeronautics - Topic 2763

Regulation - Transportation Appeal Tribunal - Judicial review - The Federal Court stated that "The Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act, SC 2001, c. 29, provides for a Tribunal of that name which, by subsection 2(2) of that Act, has jurisdiction in respect of reviews and appeals, inter alia, as expressly provided for in the Aeronautics Act. Subsection 3(1) of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act provides that the members of the Tribunal collectively have expertise in the transportation sectors in respect of which the federal government has jurisdiction. ... A Court, in reviewing a decision of that Tribunal, is entitled to presume that the members of the Tribunal have such collective expertise." - The court refused to question or review each panel member's expertise, stating that it had to "review the decisions of many different tribunals. It would be a tedious, indeed futile exercise if, as an element of each judicial review, the expertise of a panel member by the Court was to be examined. Perhaps there may be an exceptional reason to do so, but it is the party making the challenge who must offer such a reason clearly; it is not the duty of the Court to conduct such an inquiry routinely or without a proper evidentiary basis." - See paragraphs 38 and 39.

Aeronautics - Topic 2763

Regulation - Transportation Appeal Tribunal - Judicial review - The applicant applied for judicial review of a decision of a three-member panel of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal which dismissed the applicant's appeal from a decision of a one-member panel upholding a refusal by the Minister of Transport to issue him a civil aviation licence because he did not meet all the requirements of the Medical Standards for Civil Aviation - The Federal Court reviewed the Tribunal's decision on the basis of reasonableness, with deference to its expertise - The issue before the court was whether the decision reasonably, in its result, reflected a proportionate exercise as between Charter rights, the Human Rights Act and the objectives of the Aeronautics Act - See paragraphs 32 to 43.

Aeronautics - Topic 4562

Pilots - Licensing - Medical standards - The applicant applied for judicial review of a decision of a three-member panel of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal which dismissed his appeal from a decision of a one-member panel upholding a refusal by the Minister of Transport to issue him a civil aviation licence because he did not meet all the requirements of the Medical Standards for Civil Aviation - The applicant was taking four different prescription medicines, two of which were well known to be very sedative - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The court stated that the Aeronautics Act and Regulations were directed to air safety - "Medical fitness of a pilot is required. Discretion is given to the Minister, in the case of a disability, to grant a licence when air safety is not compromised. Here, evidence was given that the taking of multiple drugs, particularly sedative drugs, may have an effect on a pilot's medical fitness. While no effects have yet manifested themselves in respect of this particular Applicant, the Tribunal has to consider all the evidence and come to a conclusion. The conclusion reached by the one-member and by the three-member Tribunal was that the risk to air safety outweighed the individual benefit to the Applicant to receive a licence. The three-member panel offered an alternative to the Applicant of changing one of the drugs to another so as to accommodate him. There is no record that this has been done." - The decision of the three-member Tribunal (as well as the one-member Tribunal) was reasonable and adequately considered the applicant's rights under the Charter and Human Rights Act - See paragraphs 44 to 54.

Aeronautics - Topic 4562

Pilots - Licensing - Medical standards - The applicant applied for judicial review of a decision of a three-member panel of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal which dismissed his appeal from a decision of a one-member panel upholding a refusal by the Minister of Transport to issue him a civil aviation licence because he did not meet all the requirements of the Medical Standards for Civil Aviation - The applicant was taking four different prescription medicines, two of which were well known to be very sedative - The applicant sought, as part of the relief, an "individualized medical test" - The Federal Court stated that "The nature of that test is not clearly set out in the Applicant's material nor is there an indication as to whom and how it is to be conducted or who will pay for it. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Applicant was afforded the opportunity to lead evidence as to his medical fitness, and did. So did the Minister. To that extent, the Applicant had a personalized review of his medical fitness. The Applicant is a senior medical doctor; if he believed that certain tests could be appropriately conducted, he should propose what they are. Perhaps he should have conducted such tests and provided the results to the Tribunal. We have the evidence that he did provide, and the resulting decision to refuse a licence is, as I have determined, reasonable." - See paragraphs 55 to 57.

Cases Noticed:

Kiss v. Canada (Minister of Transportation) (1999), 172 F.T.R. 229; 1999 CanLII 8509, refd to. [para. 20].

Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2015), 599 A.R. 210; 643 W.A.C. 210; 2015 ABCA 85, refd to. [para. 32].

Skyline Agriculture Financial Corp. et al. v. Farm Land Security Board (2015), 473 Sask.R. 283; 2015 SKQB 82, refd to. [para. 33].

Doré v. Barreau du Québec, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 395; 428 N.R. 146; 2012 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 34].

Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General) (2015), 468 N.R. 323; 2015 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 34].

Grismer v British Columbia (Council of Human Rights) - see Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. v. Council of Human Rights (B.C.).

Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. v. Council of Human Rights (B.C.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868; 249 N.R. 45; 131 B.C.A.C. 280; 214 W.A.C. 280, refd to. [para. 50].

Counsel:

Robert A. Kasting, for the applicant;

Naomi Wright and Kayla Baldwin, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Stewart, Aulinger & Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant;

William Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents.

This application was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 11, 2015, by Hughes, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on June 16, 2015.