Date: 20020412
Docket: T-56-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 421
Ottawa, Ontario, this 12th day of April, 2002
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE
BETWEEN:
HUMBER ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS COAST GUARD
Respondent
- and -
CORNER BROOK PULP AND PAPER LIMITED
Intervenor
[1] This is an application for mandamus to require the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to enforce the Navigable Waters Protection Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-22 ("NWPA"), and in particular, order the intervenor to make application for retroactive approval pursuant to subsection 6(4) of the NWPA. This is also an application for a declaration that, by allegedly failing to enforce the NWPA, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is in violation of his duties under the NWPA.
Background
[2] The applicant is a local environmental group based in Corner Brook, Newfoundland.
[3] The respondent, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (the "Minister") agrees that the respondent Minister is responsible for, inter alia, the administration of the NWPA.
[4] Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited ("CBPP") is an intervenor in this application. CBPP owns a newsprint mill located in Corner Brook and is engaged in forestry operations in an area known as the Main River watershed area. CBPP has allegedly built at least eight bridges in the Main River watershed area without approval under the NWPA. It is a contentious issue in this proceeding as to whether any of the eight bridges are over navigable waters such that the NWPA applies.
Applicant's Submission
[5] The applicant admits that the reason for bringing the application is to trigger the environmental assessment process that is necessary before approval can be granted under the NWPA.
[6] The applicant submits that pursuant to section 5 of the NWPA, any work built or placed over navigable waters must be approved by the respondent.
[7] The applicant contends that at least two and as many as eight bridges have been constructed over navigable waters in the Main River watershed by CBPP for which approval by the respondent was not granted.
[8] The applicant submits that pursuant to subsection 6(4) of the NWPA, the Minister may approve a work, such as a bridge, retroactively, subject to compliance with section 9 of the Act.
[9] The applicant submits that the declaration by the intervenor that the NWPA is ultra vires Parliament is not available to the intervenor.
[10] The applicant submits that the issues in this application for judicial review are narrow. They are:
1. Did the Fisheries Minister fail to perform his statutory duty?
2. If so, is the applicant due a declaratory remedy?
Respondent's Submissions
[11] The respondent submits that mandamus is not available to require a Minister to do actions which are merely permissive under the Act. The respondent submits that the Minister is not in violation of his duties under the NWPA and so no declaration should be made to that effect.
Intervenor's Submissions
[12] The intervenor submits that the NWPA should not be read as applying to waters capable of limited recreational use on a seasonal basis, as such waters are not "navigable" as that term is used in the Act.
[13] The intervenor agrees with the submissions of the respondent with respect to the issues of mandamus and the declaration.
[14] The intervenor directs the Court's attention to the following excerpt from the judgment of MacKay J. in International Minerals & Chemicals Corp. (Canada) v.Canada (Minister of Transport), 58 F.T.R. 302 at paragraph 29:
The fact that a body of water will carry a canoe or other vessel is not in itself sufficient as a basis for considering the waters navigable and subject to regulation under the Act.
[15] The intervenor submits that occasional usage by recreational vessels during periods of high water does not make waters navigable, and that such would extend the concept of navigability beyond Parliament's powers under subsection 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867, (U.K.) 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3, reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 5.
[16] Issues
1. Should an order of mandamus issue requiring the respondent to enforce the NWPA and to issue an order requiring the CBPP to make an application for retroactive approval pursuant to subsection 6(4) of the NWPA?
2. Should a declaration issue declaring that the respondent is in violation of the NWPA by not requiring the CBPP to obtain approval pursuant to the NWPA?
Relevant Statutory Provisions, Regulations and Rules
[17] The following definitions to be applied throughout the NWPA appear in section 2:
|
2. In this Act, "navigable water" includes a canal and any other body of water created or altered as a result of the construction of any work. |
2. Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent à la présente loi. « eaux navigables » Sont compris parmi les eaux navigables les canaux et les autres plans d'eau créés ou modifiés par suite de la construction d'un ouvrage. |
[18] The definition of "work" that applies to the relevant portion of the NWPA is found in section 3 as follows:
|
"work" includes (a) any bridge, boom, dam, wharf, dock, pier, tunnel or pipe and the approaches or other works necessary or appurtenant thereto, (b) any dumping of fill or excavation of materials from the bed of a navigable water, (c) any telegraph or power cable or wire, or (d) any structure, device or thing, whether similar in character to anything referred to in this definition or not, that may interfere with navigation. |
« ouvrages » Sont compris parmi les ouvrages_: a) les ponts, estacades, barrages, quais, docks, jetées, tunnels ou conduites ainsi que les abords ou autres ouvrages nécessaires ou accessoires; b) les déversements de remblais ou excavations de matériaux tirés du lit d'eaux navigables; c) les câbles ou fils de télégraphe ou de transport d'énergie; d) les constructions, appareils ou objets similaires ou non à ceux mentionnés à la présente définition et susceptibles de nuire à la navigation. |
[19] In section 5 of the NWPA, the general requirement for Ministerial approval appears as follows:
|
5. (1) No work shall be built or placed in, on, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless (a) the work and the site and plans thereof have been approved by the Minister, on such terms and conditions as the Minister deems fit, prior to commencement of construction; (b) the construction of the work is commenced within six months and completed within three years after the approval referred to in paragraph (a) or within such further period as the Minister may fix; and |
5. (1) Il est interdit de construire ou de placer un ouvrage dans des eaux navigables ou sur, sous, au-dessus ou à travers de telles eaux à moins que_: a) préalablement au début des travaux, l'ouvrage, ainsi que son emplacement et ses plans, n'aient été approuvés par le ministre selon les modalités qu'il juge à propos; b) la construction de l'ouvrage ne soit commencée dans les six mois et terminée dans les trois ans qui suivent l'approbation visée à l'alinéa a) ou dans le délai supplémentaire que peut fixer le ministre; |
|
(c) the work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with the plans, the regulations and the terms and conditions set out in the approval referred to in paragraph (a). (2) Except in the case of a bridge, boom, dam or causeway, this section does not apply to any work that, in the opinion of the Minister, does not interfere substantially with navigation. |
c) la construction, l'emplacement ou l'entretien de l'ouvrage ne soit conforme aux plans, aux règlements et aux modalités que renferme l'approbation visée à l'alinéa a). (2) Sauf dans le cas d'un pont, d'une estacade, d'un barrage ou d'une chaussée, le présent article ne s'applique pas à un ouvrage qui, de l'avis du ministre, ne gêne pas sérieusement la navigation. |
[20] In section 6 of the NWPA, the remedial orders open to the Minister in respect of unauthorized works is set out as follows:
|
6. (1) Where any work to which this Part applies is built or placed without having been approved by the Minister, is built or placed on a site not approved by the Minister, is not built or placed in accordance with plans so approved or, having been so built or placed, is not maintained in accordance with those plans and the regulations, the Minister may (a) order the owner of the work to remove or alter the work; (b) where the owner of the work fails forthwith to comply with an order made pursuant to paragraph (a), remove and destroy the work and sell, give away or otherwise dispose of the materials contained in the work; and. |
6. (1) Dans les cas où un ouvrage visé par la présente partie est construit ou placé sans avoir été approuvé par le ministre ou est construit ou placé sur un emplacement non approuvé par le ministre ou n'est pas construit ou placé conformément à des plans ainsi approuvés ou, après avoir été ainsi construit ou placé, n'est pas entretenu conformément à ces plans et aux règlements, le ministre peut_: a) ordonner au propriétaire de l'ouvrage de l'enlever ou de le modifier; b) lorsque le propriétaire de l'ouvrage n'obtempère pas à un ordre donné sous le régime de l'alinéa a), enlever et détruire l'ouvrage et aliéner -- notamment par vente ou don -- les matériaux qui le composent; |
|
(c) order any person to refrain from proceeding with the construction of the work where, in the opinion of the Minister, the work interferes or would interfere with navigation or is being constructed contrary to this Act. (2) Any owner or person who fails to comply with an order given to that owner or person pursuant to paragraph (1)(a) or (c) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars. (3) Where the Minister removes, destroys or disposes of a work pursuant to paragraph (1)(b), the costs of and incidental to the operation of removal, destruction or disposal, after deducting therefrom any sum that may be realized by sale or otherwise, are recoverable with costs in the name of Her Majesty from the owner. (4) The Minister may, subject to deposit and advertisement as in the case of a proposed work, approve a work and the plans and site of the work after the commencement of its construction and the approval has the same effect as if given prior to commencement of the construction of the work. |
c) enjoindre à quiconque d'arrêter la construction de l'ouvrage lorsqu'il est d'avis qu'il gêne ou gênerait la navigation ou que sa construction est en contravention avec la présente loi. (2) Quiconque n'obtempère pas à un ordre donné sous le régime de l'alinéa (1)a) ou c) commet une infraction et encourt, sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire, une amende maximale de cinq mille dollars. (3) Les frais entraînés par l'enlèvement, la destruction ou l'aliénation d'un ouvrage par le ministre en application de l'alinéa (1)b) sont, après déduction du montant qui peut être réalisé notamment par vente, recouvrables du propriétaire, ainsi que les frais de recouvrement, au nom de Sa Majesté. (4) Le ministre peut, sous réserve de dépôt et d'annonce comme dans le cas d'un ouvrage projeté, approuver un ouvrage, ainsi que ses plans et son emplacement, après le début de sa construction; l'approbation a alors le même effet que si elle avait été donnée avant le début des travaux. |
[21] The deposit and notice requirement is set out in section 9 of the NWPA as follows:
|
9. (1) A local authority, company or person proposing to construct, in navigable waters, any work for which no sufficient sanction otherwise exists may deposit the plans thereof and a description of the proposed site with the Minister, and a duplicate of each in the office of the registrar of deeds or the land titles office for the district, county or province in which the work is proposed to be constructed, and may apply to the Minister for approval thereof. (2) [Repealed, 1993, c. 41, s. 8] (3) The local authority, company or person referred to in subsection (1) shall give one month's notice of the deposit of plans and application by advertisement in the Canada Gazette, and in two newspapers published in or near the locality where the work is to be constructed. |
9. (1) L'autorité locale, la compagnie ou le particulier qui se propose d'établir, dans des eaux navigables, un ouvrage pour lequel il n'existe par ailleurs pas d'autorisation suffisante peut en remettre les plans, avec la description de l'emplacement projeté, au ministre et déposer un double de ces documents au bureau du directeur de l'Enregistrement ou, à défaut, au bureau des titres de biens-fonds du district, du comté ou de la province où les travaux sont projetés et en demander l'approbation au ministre. (2) [Abrogé, 1993, ch. 41, art. 8] (3) L'autorité locale, la compagnie ou le particulier donne un préavis d'un mois du dépôt de ces plans et de sa demande par annonce insérée dans la Gazette du Canada et dans deux journaux publiés dans la localité où l'ouvrage doit être construit, ou dans les environs. |
[22] Subsection 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867, supra states:
|
91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, |
91. Il sera loisible à la Reine, de l'avis et du consentement du Sénat et de la Chambre des Communes, de faire des lois pour la paix, l'ordre et le bon gouvernement du Canada, relativement à toutes les matières ne tombant pas dans les catégories de sujets par la présente loi exclusivement assignés aux législatures des provinces; mais, pour plus de garantie, sans toutefois restreindre la généralité des termes ci-haut employés dans le présent article, il est par la présente déclaré que (nonobstant toute disposition contraire énoncée dans la présente loi) l'autorité législative exclusive du parlement du Canada s'étend à toutes les matières tombant dans les catégories de sujets ci-dessous énumérés, savoir: |
|
. . . 10. Navigation and Shipping. . . . And any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces. |
. . . 10. La navigation et les bâtiments ou navires . . . Et aucune des matières énoncées dans les catégories de sujets énumérés dans le présent article ne sera réputée tomber dans la catégorie des matières d'une nature locale ou privée comprises dans l'énumération des catégories de sujets exclusivement assignés par la présente loi aux législatures des provinces. |
Analysis and Decision
[23] At the commencement of the hearing, the parties agreed that the name of the respondent be amended to read only the "Minister of Fisheries and Oceans".
[24] Issue 1
Should an order of mandamus issue requiring the respondent to enforce the NWPA and to issue an order requiring the CBPP to make an application for retroactive approval pursuant to subsection 6(4) of the NWPA?
In Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (C.A.) [1994] 1 F.C. 742 at pages 766 to 769, the Court of Appeal outlined the following principles as being applicable to the granting of orders in the nature of mandamus:
(1) Mandamus- The Principles
Several principal requirements must be satisfied before mandamus will issue. The following general framework finds support in the extant jurisprudence of this Court (see generally O'Grady v. Whyte, [1983] 1 F.C. 719 (C.A.), at pages 722-723, citing Karavos v. Toronto & Gillies, [1948] 3 D.L.R. 294 (Ont. C.A.), at page 297; and Mensinger v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1987] 1 F.C. 59 (T.D.), at page 66.
1. There must be a public legal duty to act:
. . .
2. The duty must be owed to the applicant:
. . .
3. There is a clear right to performance of that duty, in particular:
(a) the applicant has satisfied all conditions precedent giving rise to the duty:
. . .
(b) There was (i) a prior demand for performance of the duty; (ii) a reasonable time to comply with the demand unless refused outright; and (iii) a subsequent refusal which can be either expressed or implied, e.g. unreasonable delay;
. . .
4. Where the duty sought to be enforced is discretionary, the following rules apply:
(a) in exercising a discretion, the decision-maker must not act in a manner which can be characterized as "unfair", "oppressive" or demonstrate "flagrant impropriety" or "bad faith";
(b) mandamusis unavailable if the decision-maker's discretion is characterized as being "unqualified", "absolute", "permissive" or "unfettered";
(c) in the exercise of a "fettered" discretion, the decision-maker must act upon "relevant", as opposed to "irrelevant", considerations:
(d) mandamusis unavailable to compel the exercise of a "fettered discretion" in a particular way; and
(e) mandamusis only available when the decision-maker's discretion is "spent", i.e., the applicant has a vested right to the performance of the duty.
. . .
5. No other adequate remedy is available to the applicant:
. . .
6. The order sought will be of some practical value or effect:
. . .
7. The Court in the exercise of its discretion finds no equitable bar to the relief sought:
. . .
8. On a "balance of convenience" an order in the nature of mandamus should (or should not) issue.
. . .
[25] It is clear from the jurisprudence cited above that there must be public legal duty to act imposed on the respondent. As well, the applicant must have satisfied all the conditions precedent for the issue of an order in the nature of mandamus. These conditions precedent are:
1. Was there a prior demand for performance of the duty?
2. Was there a reasonable time to comply with the demand unless refused immediately?
3. Was there a subsequent refusal either expressed or implied (example, unreasonable delay)?
[26] With respect to the existence of a public legal duty, a perusal of subsection 5(1) of the NWPA established that a duty on the part of the respondent Minister, if any duty does exist, would only come into play if any of the bridges in question were built across any navigable water. It would now be in order to examine the evidence with respect to navigability.
[27] The affidavit of Robert Diamond states in part as follows:
5. Between Kilometres 29 and 30 of the access road, we observed a new steel-framed bridge, with concrete abutments and a wooden deck built across a stream which appeared to us to be navigable by canoe or other craft. The co-ordinates for this bridge are N 49 48.4/W 57/6.8'.
6. Further along the road we took pictures and videos of another bridge, over the stream that runs into Eagle Mountain Pond. This bridge is at N 49 49.8/W 57 17.3'.
7. Another, larger, bridge crosses Eagle Mountain River, which is navigable by canoe or other craft. We also took pictures and videos of this bridge, which is at N 49 57.4'/W 57 17.7'.
8. Approximately 3.5 km beyond Eagle Mountain Bridge, another bridge crosses a major tributary of the Main River. This bridge, too, had concrete abutments, a steel frame and wooden deck, and is at N 49 51.9'/W 57 17.4'. At this site there was evidence of heavy equipment travelling directly through the stream.
[28] As stated earlier, the only time that subsection 5(1) of NWPA imposes a duty on the Minister, with respect to a bridge, is when that bridge spans navigable water. In Eastmain Band v. Canada (Federal Administrator) (C.A.) [1993] 1 F.C. 501, the Federal Court of Appeal stated at paragraphs 87 to 90:
However, in Oldman River, the parties had acknowledged that the Oldman River was in fact navigable (at page 54). The navigability of a river is an elementary condition for this Act to apply, and in the case at bar the appellant and Hydro-Quebec vigorously dispute the navigability of the river.
The navigability of a river is a question of fact and of law. The Court cannot assume that it is navigable, [page538] and must be in a position to conclude from the evidence submitted that it is in fact navigable (Bell v. Quebec (Corporation of) (1879-80), 5 App. Cas. 84 (P.C.) at page 93; Sim E. Bak v. Ang Yong Huat, [1923] A.C. 429 (P.C.) at page 433; Attorney General of Quebec v. Fraser (1906), 37 S.C.R. 577, at page 596, confd sub nomonine Wyatt v. Attorney-General of Quebec, [1911] A.C. 489 (P.C.); G. V. La Forest and Associates, Water Law in Canada -- The Atlantic Provinces, Regional Economic Expansion, 1973, at page 180; G. Lord, Le Droit québécois de l'eau, Centre de recherche en droit public, Universite de Montréal, Éditeur officiel du Québec, 1977, at page 61).
In this case, the Aboriginal parties were content with vague statements in the sworn declarations which they entered into evidence, which statements were more in the nature of statements of principle and conclusions of law than of precise and useful narratives of fact on which the Court could base a finding. The Court knows nothing of the characteristics of the Eastmain River, either of its general course or of the area where the dam will be constructed. The fact that it is used as a border on geographic maps does not establish that it is navigable. The assertion that it has been used as a mode of transportation by Aboriginals is too general and too isolated for the Court to act on it.
The arguments of the aboriginal parties run up against Rule 412(2) of the Rules of this Court [Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663], which provides that "Raising a question of law or an express assertion of a conclusion of law -- such as an assertion of title to property -- shall not be accepted as a substitute for a statement of material facts on which the conclusion of law is based." (See Bertram S. Miller Ltd. v. R., [1986] 3 F.C. 291 (C.A.); Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Babcock Allatt Limited, [1983] 1 F.C. 487 (T.D.).) To assert that the waters are navigable or that the dam will affect navigable waters is, it seems to me, to assert a legal consequence.
And at paragraph 93:
I therefore conclude that the record as it stands does not allow the Court to conclude that the primary condition for the Navigable Waters Protection Act, supra, to apply, that is, the navigability of the Eastmain River, has been established. The Minister of Transport could not exercise any decision-making power which would trigger the application of the Order before being persuaded of the navigability of the watercourse.
[29] I have reviewed the affidavit evidence of Mr. Diamond and Mr. Elkins and that evidence does not provide me with a basis to say that any of the waters in question are navigable. There are only general statements such as "appeared to us to be navigable by canoe or other craft" and "which is navigable by canoe or other craft". There is also reference in the affidavit evidence of Mr. Elkins to the effect that "water flow in this brook is greatly impeded by rocks and boulders". If the waters cannot be determined to be navigable, then subsection 5(1) of the NWPA does not apply and there is no authority for the respondent to act.
[30] As I have concluded that the evidence before me on this application does not show that the waters in question are navigable waters within the meaning of the NWPA, I also conclude that it has not been shown on this application that the respondent was under any duty to act with respect to the bridges in question. Accordingly, I am not prepared to grant an order in the nature of mandamus.
[31] I would also refuse to grant the order in the nature of mandamus on the basis that no prior demand was made on the respondent by the applicant. The letter to Wayne Follett of Canadian Coast Guard dated July 4, 2000 cannot be considered as a demand. The letter only asks whether the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ("DFO") "will request (or has it requested) application for a retroactive permit . . ." and "will DFO be carrying out a screening under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act?"
[32] Issue 2
Should a declaration issue declaring that the respondent is in violation of the Act by not requiring the CBPP to obtain approval pursuant to that Act?
In order to issue the declaration requested by the applicant, I would have to be satisfied that the respondent was in violation of the NWPA. As I am not persuaded by the evidence before me that the bridges in question are over "navigable waters", I am unable to issue the declaration requested.
[33] The application is therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent and intervenor.
ORDER
[34] IT IS ORDERED that by consent of the parties, the name of the respondent be amended to read the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
[35] AND IT IS ORDERED that the application is dismissed with costs to the respondent and intervenor.
"John A. O'Keefe"
J.F.C.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
April 12, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.:
T-56-01
STYLE OF CAUSE:
Humber Environmental Action Group v. Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans et al.
PLACE OF HEARING:
St. John's, Newfoundland
DATE OF HEARING:
November 9, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER OF:
The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Keefe
DATED:
April 12, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Shelley A. Senior
For the Applicant
Mr. Reinhold Endres
Mr. Scott E. McCrossin
For the Respondent
Mr. James L. Thistle
Ms. Sandra Gogol
For the Intervenor
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Shelley A. Senior Law Office
Corner Brook, Newfoundland
For the Applicant
Mr. Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
For the Respondent
McInnes Cooper
St. John's, Newfoundland
For the Intervenor