Great Lakes United et al. v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) et al., 2009 FC 408

• Judge: Russell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 19, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2009 FC 408;(2009), 346 F.T.R. 106 (FC)

Great Lakes United v. Can. (2009), 346 F.T.R. 106 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.009

Great Lakes United and Miningwatch Canada (applicants) v. Minister of the Environment (respondent) and Mining Association of Canada (intervenor)

(T-1922-07; 2009 FC 408)

Indexed As: Great Lakes United et al. v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) et al.

Federal Court

Russell, J.

April 23, 2009.

Summary:

Great Lakes United and Miningwatch Canada (the applicants) applied for judicial review respecting the Minister of the Environment's ongoing failure under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), to require reporting by mining facilities of releases or transfers of pollutants to waste rock and tailings disposal areas. The applicants sought a declaration that the Minister erred in interpreting the CEPA by not providing such pollutant release information to the public through the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) in 2006 and subsequent years, and an order in the nature of mandamus directing the Minister to publish through the NPRI data from mining facilities of releases to tailings and waste rock disposal areas for the 2006 reporting year and subsequent years in accordance with ss. 48 and 50 of the CEPA. The Mining Association of Canada intervened.

The Federal Court allowed the application. The court held that the Minister erred in his interpretation of the CEPA as not requiring him to provide pollutant release information to the public through the NPRI in relation to releases and transfers to tailings and waste rock disposal areas by mining facilities in 2006 and subsequent years. The court issued an order in the nature of mandamus directing the Minister to publish pollutant release information to the public as requested by the applicants.

Administrative Law - Topic 1010

Classification of power or function - General principles - Statutory powers - The applicants applied for judicial review respecting the Minister of the Environment's ongoing failure under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), to require reporting by mining facilities of releases or transfers of pollutants to waste rock and tailings disposal areas - The applicants sought a declaration that the Minister erred in interpreting the CEPA by not providing such pollutant release information to the public through the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) in 2006 and subsequent years, and mandamus directing the Minister to publish through the NPRI data from mining facilities of releases to tailings and waste rock disposal areas for the 2006 reporting year and subsequent years in accordance with ss. 48 and 50 of the CEPA - An issue arose as whether the Minister's decision not to report was reviewable - The Federal Court agreed that a purely ministerial decision, on grounds of public policy, or a decision that was the exercise of legislative function might not be amenable to judicial supervision - However, that was not the case here where the court was asked to review the Minister's actions taken in the exercise of a statutory power (i.e., the Minister's failure to carry out the mandatory obligations imposed on him under ss. 2, 48 and 50 of the CEPA) - Therefore, the conduct of the Minister in failing to carry out the obligations imposed by statute was subject to review - The standard of review was that of correctness - See paragraphs 22 to 24, 78 to 95, 98, 110 to 113, 210 to 234 and 237 to 240.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 1010 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3211

Judicial review - General - Review of exercise of statutory power - [See Administrative Law - Topic 1010 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3342

Judicial review - General - Practice - Limitation period - [See Pollution Control - Topic 9410 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3347

Judicial review - General - Practice - Parties (incl. standing) - Great Lakes United and Miningwatch Canada (the applicants) applied for judicial review respecting the Minister of the Environment's ongoing failure under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), to require reporting by mining facilities of releases or transfers of pollutants to waste rock and tailings disposal areas - The Mining Association of Canada intervened - The applicants sought declaratory relief and an order in the nature of mandamus against the Minister - The applicants claimed that they were entitled to public interest standing - The Federal Court noted that both the applicants and the Minister had agreed that the applicants should have standing - The intervener did not make any arguments in relation to why the applicants should not have standing; therefore, the court concluded that the intervener was also in agreement that the applicants had standing - The court agreed that the applicants had standing, stating that it saw no other way that the matter could be brought before the court - See paragraphs 25 to 30, 77, 235 and 236.

Administrative Law - Topic 3503

Judicial review - Mandamus - General - When available - [See Pollution Control - Topic 4 ].

Courts - Topic 4071.3

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Practice - Judicial review applications - Time for - [See Pollution Control - Topic 9410 ].

Pollution Control - Topic 4

General principles - General - Environmental legislation - Interpretation - Great Lakes United and Miningwatch Canada (the applicants) applied for judicial review respecting the Minister of the Environment's ongoing failure under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), to require reporting by mining facilities of releases or transfers of pollutants to waste rock and tailings disposal areas - The applicants sought a declaration that the Minister erred in interpreting the CEPA by not providing such pollutant release information to the public through the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) in 2006 and subsequent years, and mandamus directing the Minister to publish through the NPRI data from mining facilities of releases to tailings and waste rock disposal areas for the 2006 reporting year and subsequent years in accordance with ss. 48 and 50 of the CEPA - The Federal Court allowed the application - The court interpreted the applicable provisions of the CEPA (i.e., ss. 2, 46, 48, and 50) - The court held that the Minister erred in his interpretation of the CEPA as not requiring him to provide pollutant release information to the public through the NPRI in relation to releases and transfers to tailings and waste rock disposal areas by mining facilities in 2006 and subsequent years - The court granted an order of mandamus, directing the Minister to publish pollutant release information to the public as requested by the applicants - See paragraphs 31 to 75, 96 to 109 and 114 to 209 and 241.

Pollution Control - Topic 8063

Land - Waste disposal - General - Legislation - Interpretation - [See Pollution Control - Topic 4 ].

Pollution Control - Topic 8076

Land - Waste disposal - General - Waste rock and tailings from mining operations - [See Pollution Control - Topic 4 ].

Pollution Control - Topic 9402

Appeals or judicial review - Scope of appeal or review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 1010 ].

Pollution Control - Topic 9406

Appeals or judicial review - Standing - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3347 ].

Pollution Control - Topic 9408

Appeals or judicial review - When available - [See Administrative Law - Topic 1010 ].

Pollution Control - Topic 9409

Appeals or judicial review - Standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 1010 ].

Pollution Control - Topic 9410

Appeals or judicial review - Time for - The applicants applied for judicial review respecting the Minister of the Environment's ongoing failure under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), to require reporting by mining facilities of releases or transfers of pollutants to waste rock and tailings disposal areas - The Mining Association of Canada intervened - The applicants sought declaratory relief and mandamus - The Minister claimed that the application was filed in November 2007 seeking judicial review of the Minister's decision not to require reporting of certain mining data in a 2006 Canada Gazette Notice dated February 25, 2006 - Therefore, the Minister submitted that this application was out of time because it was not brought within 30 days of the date of the 2006 Notice (Federal Courts Act, s. 18.1(2)) - The Federal Court held that this application was really about a challenge to an on-going course of action by the Minister to exempt pollutants from the reporting requirement under the CEPA and the Minister's on-going failure to publish such information in the National Pollutant Release Inventory in accordance with his statutory duties under ss. 2, 48 and 50 of the CEPA - As such, the court held that the application was not time barred - See paragraphs 14 to 17, 98 and 242 to 244.

Practice - Topic 221

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Public interest standing (incl. requirements of) - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3347 ].

Words and Phrases

Releases of pollutants - The Federal Court discussed the meaning of this phrase as it appeared in s. 48 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, S.C. 1999, c. 33 - See paragraphs 178 to 190.

Cases Noticed:

Goodwin et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 279 F.T.R. 100; 2005 FC 1185, refd to. [para. 15].

Krause et al. v. Canada et al., [1999] 2 F.C. 476; 236 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Canadian Association of the Deaf et al. v. Canada (2006), 298 F.T.R. 90; 2006 FC 971, refd to. [para. 17].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 23].

Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada and Canada (Minister of Economic Development), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2; 44 N.R. 354, refd to. [para. 23].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 26].

Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] O.T.C. 1127 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338, refd to. [para. 29].

Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance) et al., [1999] 2 F.C. 211; 157 F.T.R. 123 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 29].

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Quebec (Minister of the Environment) - see Compagnie pétrolière Impériale ltée v. Québec (Ministre de l'Environnement).

Compagnie pétrolière Impériale ltée v. Québec (Ministre de l'Environnement), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 624; 310 N.R. 343, refd to. [para. 32].

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. 33].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. National Energy Board - see Québec (Procureur général) v. Office national de l'énergie.

Québec (Procureur général) v. Office national de l'énergie, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 159; 163 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 33].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Hydro-Québec, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213; 217 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 33].

114957 Canada ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; 271 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 33].

British Columbia v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 74; 321 N.R. 1; 198 B.C.A.C. 1; 324 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 33].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 39].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 54].

North Vancouver (District) v. National Harbours Board, [1978] F.C.J. No. 619 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 56].

Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Oceans, [1968] A.C. 997 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 58].

Rubin v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. (President) (1988), 86 N.R. 186 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Multi-Malls Inc. v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation and Communications) (1976), 14 O.R.(2d) 49 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Doctors Hospital v. Ontario (Minister of Health) et al. (1976), 12 O.R.(2d) 164 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291, refd to. [para. 59].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 61].

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc.

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc., [1994] 1 F.C. 742; 162 N.R. 177 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Canadian Wildlife Federation Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) and Saskatchewan Water Corp. (1989), 99 N.R. 72 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Distribution Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 2 F.C. 26; 149 N.R. 152 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Harris et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4 F.C. 37; 256 N.R. 221 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Whitton v. Canada (Procureur général), [2002] 4 F.C. 126; 291 N.R. 318 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Carpenter Fishing Corp. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [1998] 2 F.C. 548; 221 N.R. 372 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

Alberta v. Canadian Wheat Board, [1998] 2 F.C. 156; 138 F.T.R. 186 (T.D.), affd. (1998), 234 N.R. 74 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

Moresby Explorers Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2001] 4 F.C. 591; 208 F.T.R. 189 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 81].

Moresby Explorers Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2005), 273 F.T.R. 175 (F.C.), affd. (2007), 367 N.R. 204; 2007 FCA 273, refd to. [para. 81].

Gulf Trollers Association v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [1987] 2 F.C. 93; 72 N.R. 31 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

Northern Lights Fitness Products Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) et al. (1994), 75 F.T.R. 111 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 96].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38, refd to. [para. 101].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304, refd to. [para. 110].

Ecology Action Centre Society v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 262 F.T.R. 160; 9 C.E.L.R.(3d) 161 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 110].

Vancouver Island Peace Society et al. v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) et al. (1993), 64 F.T.R. 127; 11 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 112].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38, refd to. [para. 149].

Middlesex (County) v. Ontario (Minister of Municipal Affairs), [1992] O.J. No. 1760 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 233].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119, refd to. [para. 234].

Sutcliffe et al. v. Ontario (Minister of the Environment) et al. (2004), 190 O.A.C. 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 234].

Nunavut Wildlife Management Board v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al. (2009), 339 F.T.R. 164 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 238].

Environmental Resource Centre et al. v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) et al. (2001), 214 F.T.R. 94; 2001 FCT 1423, refd to. [para. 239].

Alberta Wilderness Association et al. v. Cardinal River Coals Ltd., [1999] 3 F.C. 425; 165 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 239].

Friends of the West Country Association v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [2000] 2 F.C. 263; 248 N.R. 25 (F.C.A.), affing. [1998] 4 F.C. 340; 150 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 239].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, S.C. 1999, c. 33, sect. 2, sect. 44, sect. 45, sect. 46, sect. 47, sect. 48, sect. 49, sect. 50, sect. 51, sect. 52, sect. 53, sect. 54, sect. 55 [para. 18].

Department of the Environment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-10, sect. 5 [para. 19].

Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18.1(2) [para. 21].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 11 [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cameron, Duncan J., Blasioli, Daniel C., and Arès, Michel, Annoted Guide to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (2007), pp. 62, 63 [para. 37].

Canada, Environment Canada, Discussion Paper on Pollutant Release Reporting Requirements As it Relates to Mining Facilities (2003), generally [para. 163].

Canada, Environment Canada, Report of the National Pollutant Release Inventory Multi-Stakeholder Work Group on Substances (November 24, 2005), p. 23 [para. 166].

Canada, Environment Protection Service, Guide for Reporting to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (2005), generally [paras. 133, 154, 164].

Canada, Environment Protection Service, Guide for Reporting to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (2006), generally [paras. 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 160, 161, 165].

Canada, Environment Protection Service, Guidelines for the Use of Information Gathering Authorities under Section 46 of the CEPA, 1999 (2001), generally [para. 87].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 135, No. 093, 1st Sess., 36th Parliament (April 27, 1998), pp. 6124, 6125 [paras. 40, 56].

de Smith, Stanley Alexander, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th Ed. 1980), p. 71 [para. 111].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Jones, David Phillip, and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (4th Ed. 2004), p. 168 [para. 39].

Wade, Henry William Rawson, and Forsyth, Christopher F., Administrative Law (9th Ed. 2004), pp. 354 to 359 [para. 39]; 618 to 620 [para. 56].

Counsel:

Marlene Cashin and Justin Duncan, for the applicants;

Paul Evraire and Negar Hashemi, for the respondent;

Rodney V. Northey, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Law Office of Ecojustice Canada, for the applicants;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

Fogler, Rubinoff, LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This application was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on January 19, 2009, by Russell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on April 23, 2009.