Friends of the Island Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works) et al., (1995) 89 F.T.R. 220 (TD)

• Judge: Cullen, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 08, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 89 F.T.R. 220 (TD)

Friends of the Island Inc. v. Can. (1995), 89 F.T.R. 220 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Friends of the Island Inc. (applicant) v. Minister of Public Works, Minister of Transport, Minister of the Environment, Strait Crossing Inc. and Strait Crossing Development Corp. (respondents) and The Attorney General for Prince Edward Island, The Attorney General for New Brunswick (intervenors)

(T-1394-93)

Indexed As: Friends of the Island Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works) et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Cullen, J.

January 5, 1995.

Summary:

The Friends of the Island Inc. applied for prerogative relief respecting decisions made by the federal government and the provincial governments of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island surrounding the proposed fixed link crossing between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a decision reported 61 F.T.R. 4, allowed the application, and as a remedy (1) ordered the Minister of Public Works to have an assessment undertaken pursuant to s. 12 of the Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order respecting the specific bridge project proposed (the SCI proposal) before irrevocable decisions were made; and (2) declared that discontinuance of the ferry service, in the absence of a constitutional amendment, would breach the Terms of Union (P.E.I.).

SCI and the Minister of Public Works immediately took steps to comply with the court's order. The Minister of Public Works then decided that the potentially adverse environmental effects that might be caused by the SCI proposal were insignificant or mitigable with known technology and the project could proceed. This decision prompted a second application by the Friends for prerogative relief against the federal government and the companies behind the SCI proposal. The Friends also applied for a declaration that any agreement entered into by the federal government and the respondent SCI companies for construction of the bridge or charging tolls for use of the bridge was unconstitutional.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a decision reported 65 F.T.R. 180, dismissed the Friends' application.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in the decision reported below, dealt with costs accordingly.

Administrative Law - Topic 3349

Judicial review - Practice - Costs - The Friends of the Island Inc. applied for, inter alia, prerogative relief respecting federal and provincial decisions surrounding the proposed fixed link crossing between Prince Edward Island and the mainland - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dealt with the issues accordingly - The parties subsequently applied for a determination of costs - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application - The court stated that under Federal Court Rule 1618 no costs were payable in judicial review proceedings unless "special reasons" existed - There were no special reasons in this case warranting the award of costs.

Administrative Law - Topic 3349

Judicial review - Practice - Costs - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that under Federal Court Rule 1618 no costs were payable in judicial review proceedings unless "special reasons" existed - The court opined that in the cases "in which costs have been awarded for special reasons, either the actions were unfounded or there was conduct warranting the sanction of a cost award" - See paragraph 5 - Accordingly, the court rejected a respondents' claim for costs on the ground that they were the successful party.

Courts - Topic 4069

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Costs - [See both Administrative Law - Topic 3349 ].

Practice - Topic 8564

Costs - Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - [See both Administrative Law - Topic 3349 ].

Cases Noticed:

Silk, Re, [1982] 1 F.C. 795; 39 N.R. 523 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 3].

Friends of Oak Hammock Marsh Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Western Economic Diversification) et al. (1993), 67 F.T.R. 183 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Canada v. Gillespie (No. 1) (1987), 80 N.R. 28 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society v. Banff National Park (Superintendent) et al. (1993), 69 F.T.R. 241 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Friends of the Island Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works) et al. (1993), 65 F.T.R. 180 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

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.), refd to. [para. 6].

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, refd to. [para. 9].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 1618 [para. 2].

Counsel:

Mark Frieman, for the applicant;

Brian Evernden, for the respondents, Minister of Public Works, Minister of Transport and Minister of the Environment;

Sandra A. Forbes, for the respondents, Strait Crossing Inc. and Strait Crossing Development Inc.

Solicitors of Record:

McCarthy, Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents, Minister of Public Works, Minister of Transport and Minister of the Environment;

Davies, Ward & Beck, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Strait Crossing Inc. and Strait Crossing Development Inc.;

Minister of Provincial Affairs & Attorney General of the Province of Prince Edward Island, for the intervenor, Attorney General of the Province of Prince Edward Island;

Legal Services Branch, Office of the Attorney General of the Province of New Brunswick, for the intervenor, Attorney General of the Province of New Brunswick.

This application was heard on December 8, 1994, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Cullen, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on January 5, 1995.