Friends of the Island Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works) et al., (1995) 185 N.R. 48 (FCA)

• Judge: MacGuigan, Desjardins and McDonald, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: June 23, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 185 N.R. 48 (FCA)

Friends of the Island Inc. v. Can. (1995), 185 N.R. 48 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

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

(A-510-93)

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

Federal Court of Appeal

MacGuigan, Desjardins and

McDonald, JJ.A.

June 23, 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 Friends appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Pollution Control - Topic 1842.1

Environmental assessments or impact studies - Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order (EARP Guidelines Order) - Mitigable with known technology - Under a court order Public Works Canada carried out a specific en­vironmental evaluation of the proposed bridge joining Prince Edward Island and the mainland (Guidelines Order, s. 12) - The Minister decided that the potentially adverse environmental effects of the bridge were insignificant or mitigable with known technology and the project would proceed - A trial judge refused to set aside the Minister's decision, where, inter alia, s. 12 of the Guidelines Order was complied with, there was no evidence of bias or reasonable apprehension of bias, and there was no misunderstanding or misuse of the mitigation with known technology require­ment - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

Pollution Control - Topic 1851

Environmental assessments or impact studies - Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order (EARP Guidelines Order) - Initial assessment by initiating department - Evaluation of spe­cific project - Sufficiency of - [See Pol­lution Control - Topic 1842.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

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; 4 Admin. L.R.(2d) 121, consd. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Environment Act, Department of, Regu­lations (Can.), Environmental Assess­ment and Review Process Guidelines Order, SOR/84-467, sect. 3 [para. 4]; sect. 4 [paras. 17, 20]; sect. 10 [para. 5]; sect. 12 [para. 6 et seq.]; sect. 12(c), sect. 12(d), sect. 12(e), sect. 12(f) [para. 7]; sect. 14 [para. 15].

Counsel:

Mark J. Freiman and Jeremy Devereux, for the appellant;

Joseph de Pencier, for the respondents, Minister of Public Works, Minister of Transport and Minister of the Environ­ment;

Steven Sharpe and Sandra A. Forbes, for the respondents, Strait Crossing Inc. and Strait Crossing Development Corp.;

Roger B. Langille, Q.C., for the intervenor respondent, Attorney General for Prince Edward Island;

Paul H. Blanchet, for the intervenor re­spondent, Attorney General for New Brunswick.

Solicitors of Record:

McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

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 respondents, Strait Crossing Inc. and Strait Crossing Development Corp.;

Department of Provincial Affairs and Attorney General, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, for the intervenor re­spondent, Attorney General for Prince Edward Island;

Department of Justice and Attorney Gen­eral, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervenor respondent, Attorney General for New Brunswick.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on June 19, 20 and 23, 1995, before Mac­Guigan, Desjardins and McDonald, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On June 23, 1995, MacGuigan, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment orally from the bench, for the Court of Appeal.