Compagnie pétrolière Impériale ltée v. Québec (Ministre de l'Environnement), (2003) 310 N.R. 343 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Thursday October 30, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 310 N.R. 343 (SCC);2003 SCC 58

Imperial Oil v. Que. (2003), 310 N.R. 343 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.R. TBEd. OC.062

Compagnie pétrolière Impériale ltée (appelante) c. Procureur général du Québec pour et au nom du ministre de l'Environnement, André Boisclair (anciennement Paul Bégin) (intimé) et Tribunal administratif du Québec, Ville de Lévis, Ginette Tanguay, Marc Turgeon, Lucie Munger, Nicolas Pelletier, Christine Duhaime, Succession de Claude Maheux, Christine Bédard, Nancy Kidd, André Martin, Jacques Desmeules, Claude Nadeau, Brigitte Michaud, Lucien Bélanger, Carole Roseberry, Reynald Landry, Bernard Côté, Groupe B. Côté, Caisse populaire Desjardins de Saint-David, Les Entreprises Michel Verret inc., André Blais, Sylvie Bourget, Céline Couture, Jacques Marquis, Normand Rodrigue, Chantale Jean, Jean-Marc Bergeron, Jocelyne Giasson, Lini Fortin, Martine Ringuet, Marielle Vallières, Gilbert Caron, Rita Nolin, Renée-Claude Gagné, Danny Gracez et Corporation Adélaîde Capitale inc. (mis en cause) et Procureur général de l'Ontario et Amie(e)s de la Terre (intervenants)

(28835; 2003 SCC 58; 2003 CSC 58)

Indexed As: Compagnie pétrolière Impériale ltée v. Québec (Ministre de l'Environnement)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.

October 30, 2003.

Summary:

In March 1998, the Minister of the Envi­ronment (Que.) issued an order under s. 31.42 of the Environment Quality Act re­quiring Imperial Oil Ltd., as the former owner and operator of a site contaminated by hy­drocarbons, to have a soil characterization study done by an independent expert, at its own expense, and to submit the report no later than June 30, 1998. The study had to include a detailed examination of the condi­tion of the soil, an assessment of the level of soil contamination and recommendations as to what action should be taken upon receipt of the report. The order, called a characteriz­ation order, did not direct that the work be done at that stage in the proceedings initiated by the Minister. Imperial declined to do the characterization study. It exercised the right of appeal provided by s. 96 of the Act.

The Administrative Tribunal of Québec, in a decision reported [1999] T.A.Q. 1256, dismissed the appeal. Imperial filed an appli­cation for judicial review and declaratory judgment.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported J.E. 2000-442, allowed the applica­tion and set aside the Tribunal's decision and the Minister's order. The Minister appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [2001] 1 R.J.Q. 1732, allowed the appeal. Imperial appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 2084

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Con­flict of interest - In March 1998, the Min­ister issued an order under s. 31.42 (enacted in 1990) of the Environment Quality Act (Que.) requiring Imperial Oil Ltd., as the former owner and operator of a site contaminated by hydrocarbons, to have a soil characterization study done by an independent expert, at its own expense, and to submit the report no later than June 30, 1998 - Imperial challenged the Minis­ter's order, invoking bias and breach of pro­cedural fairness, where the Minister was in a conflict of interest as a result of his implication in a prior (1988-1989), unsuc­cessful, decontamination effort and as a party in actions brought by owners of houses now situated on the contaminated site - The Supreme Court of Canada af­firmed the dismissal of the challenge where: (1) the concept of impartiality governing judicial work did not apply to the Minister's decision; (2) the Minister complied with the procedural fairness re­quirements found in the Act and in the Act respecting Administrative Justice; and (3) there was no conflict of interest since (a) the interests in issue did not amount to per­sonal interests; (b) the Minister repre­sented the public interest in protecting the environment and the State's interest in pre­serving it; and (c) the Minister com­plied with the applicable law.

Administrative Law - Topic 2272

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Circumstances or powers to which duty applies (incl. extent of duty) - [See Ad­ministrative Law - Topic 2084].

Pollution Control - Topic 9318

Enforcement - General - Liability for compensation by owner or person control­ling pollutant - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2084].

Cases Noticed:

Pearlman v. Manitoba Law Society Judi­cial Committee, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 869; 130 N.R. 121; 75 Man.R.(2d) 81; 6 W.A.C. 81, consd. [para. 18].

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. 19].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 28].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Founda­tion et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 28].

Office national de l'énergie - see Commit­tee for Justice and Liberty et al. v. Na­tional Energy Board et al.

Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association et al. (2003), 306 N.R. 34 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170; 116 N.R. 46; 60 Man.R.(2d) 134, refd to. [para. 29].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 29].

Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81, refd to. [para. 31].

Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 and Labour Relations Board (Ont.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282; 105 N.R. 161; 38 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 31].

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, refd to. [para. 31].

Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Control Licensing Branch (B.C.) (2001), 274 N.R. 116; 155 B.C.A.C. 193; 254 W.A.C. 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Administrative Justice, Act respecting, R.S.Q. 1977, c. J-3, sect. 2, sect. 15, sect. 137 [para. 14].

Environment Quality Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. Q-2, sect. 31.42, sect. 31.44, sect. 96, sect. 115.1 [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Daigneault, Robert, La portée de la loi dite du "pollueur-payeur" (1991), 36 McGill L.J. 1027, generally [para. 23].

Garant, Patrice, Droit administratif (4th Ed. 1996), vol. 2, Le contentieux, pp. 319, 320, 338 [para. 29].

Issalys, Pierre, and Lemieux, Denis, L'ac­tion gouvernementale: Précis de droit des institutions administratives (2nd Ed. 2002), pp. 127 [para. 38]; 847 [para. 26].

Counsel:

Pierre Legault and Olivier Therrien, for the appellant, Compagnie pétrolière Impériale ltée/Imperial Oil Ltd.;

Claude Bouchard, Dominique Rousseau and Anne-Marie Brunet, for the respon­dent, Ministre de l'Environnement (Qué.)/Minister of the Environment (Que.);

Jacques Lemieux, for the mis en cause, Tribunal administratif du Québec/Admin­istrative Tribunal of Québec;

Michel Laliberté, for the mis en cause Ville de Lévis;

Jack D. Coop, for the intervener, Procureur général de l'Ontario/Attorney General of Ontario;

Written submissions only by Jerry V. DeMarco, Robert V. Wright and Lynda M. Collins, for the interveners Amie(e)s de la Terre/Friends of the Earth.

Solicitors of Record:

Desjardins Ducharme Stein Monast, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant, Compagnie pétrolière Impériale ltée/Imp­erial Oil Ltd.;

Ministère de la Justice, Québec, Quebec, for the respondent, Ministre de l'Envi­ronnement (Qué.)/Minister of the Envi­ronment (Que.);

Lemieux Chrétien Lahaye Corriveau, Québec, Quebec, for the mis en cause, Tribunal administratif du Québec/Admin­istrative Tribunal of Québec;

City of Lévis, Lévis, Quebec, for the mis en cause Ville de Lévis.

Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Procureur général de l'Onta­rio/Attorney General of Ontario.

Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Toronto, Ontario, of the interveners, Amie(e)s de la Terre/Friends of the Earth.

This appeal was heard on February 14, 2003, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iaco­bucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered by LeBel, J., in both official lan­guages on Octo­ber 30, 2003.