Date: 20050929
Docket: T-1963-04
Citation: 2005 FC 1287
BETWEEN:
MARINE RESEARCH INC.,
entity duly incorporated under the laws
of the province of New Brunswick
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (the DFO), in a letter dated October 7, 2004, refusing to issue a fishing licence for scientific purposes to Recherches Marines Inc.
[2] On August 12, 2004, the DFO received a licence application pursuant to section 52 of the Fisheries Regulations (General), SOR/93-53 (the Regulations), filed by the applicant, an entity duly incorporated under the New Brunswick Business Corporations Act. The application for a fishing licence for scientific purposes was received at the DFO regional office in the Gulf area. Marine Research said it wanted to collect the information needed to produce and market fishing cards for fishing professionals, setting out the distribution of various biological and commercial categories of snow crab in the area of fishing zone 12. This was the first time that the DFO had received an application of this kind in the Gulf area and, in its correspondence with the applicant, the DFO asked for additional information.
[3] In particular, the DFO wanted to know whether the applicant had consulted and obtained the support of fishermen in certain zones for its project. By a letter dated September 2, 2004, the applicant informed the DFO that it had not consulted these fishermen.
[4] By a letter dated September 17, 2004, the DFO informed the applicant’s counsel that additional information was required to fully assess the licence application. The DFO further informed the applicant of the conditions that would be applicable if a licence were issued, also urging the latter to initiate discussions about the possibility of setting up a joint project with the Department.
[5] On September 24, 2004, counsel for the applicant commenced two court proceedings: she filed an application for a writ of mandamus ordering the DFO to make a decision on the licence application and a motion that the application in question be a specially-managed proceeding.
[6] On September 29, 2004, counsel for the applicant informed the Court that the DFO would be given no further information in support of the licence application. On the following day, my colleague Harrington J. dismissed the motion for a specially-managed proceeding (2004 FC 1347), making the following comment in his decision:
[10] The fact remains that the Minister has been informed that he will receive no new information enabling him either to agree or refuse to grant the permit speedily. Consequently, if no decision has been given to the applicant on October 8, 2004, it will be opened to the applicant to make a motion for mandamus. The reasons at bar should not be interpreted as a direction to the Minister requiring him to make a decision before that date.
[7] On October 7, 2004, in view of the applicant’s failure to provide all the information requested, the DFO rejected the licence application and notified counsel for the applicant by a letter dated the same day. In that letter, Charles Gaudet, Director of Business Systems and Strategic Planning, informed the applicant that, in his view, the latter had agreed to the Department making a decision on the licence application based solely on the information provided to date and, without the additional information requested, the Department unfortunately could not complete its assessment of the application. On October 14, 2004, Harrington J. issued a direction in which he indicated that, in his opinion, the DFO, in its correspondence of October 7, 2004, had rejected the licence application by Marine Research. (The direction further indicated that, if the Minister did not agree with this view, the application for a writ of mandamus would be heard on October 19, 2004.)
[8] On October 15, 2004, the DFO confirmed that the letter of October 7, 2004, indicated [TRANSLATION] “the Minister’s decision not to issue the licence sought by Marine Research”.
[9] By a letter dated November 3, 2004, the DFO again explained to the applicant what information was required and again informed it of the conditions that would be applicable if a licence were issued, suggesting that the applicant hold a meeting to [TRANSLATION] “discuss and clarify information and positions”.
[10] On November 4, 2004, counsel for the applicant filed the application for judicial review at bar.
* * * * * * * *
[11] The relevant provision of the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14 (the Act), is the following:
|
7. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister may, in his absolute discretion, wherever the exclusive right of fishing does not already exist by law, issue or authorize to be issued leases and licences for fisheries or fishing, wherever situated or carried on.
|
|
7. (1) En l’absence d’exclusivité du droit de pêche conférée par la loi, le ministre peut, à discrétion, octroyer des baux et permis de pêche ainsi que des licences d’exploitation de pêcheries — ou en permettre l’octroi —, indépendamment du lieu de l’exploitation ou de l’activité de pêche.
|
|
|
|
|
[12] The relevant provisions of the Regulations are the following:
|
8. (1) The Minister may require an applicant for a document to submit (a) such information in addition to that included in the application as may reasonably be regarded as relevant; and
|
|
8. (1) Le ministre peut exiger de la personne qui demande un document de fournir : a) des renseignements qui peuvent être raisonnablement considérés comme pertinents, outre ceux contenus dans la demande;
|
|
|
|
|
|
22. (1) For the proper management and control of fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish, the Minister may specify in a licence any condition that is not inconsistent with these Regulations or any of the Regulations listed in subsection 3(4) and in particular, but not restricting the generality of the foregoing, may specify conditions respecting any of the following matters: (a) the species of fish and quantities thereof that are permitted to be taken or transported; (b) the age, sex, stage of development or size of fish that are permitted to be taken or transported; (c) the waters in which fishing is permitted to be carried out; (d) the location from which and to which fish is permitted to be transported; (e) the vessel from which and to which fish is permitted to be transhipped; (f) the period during which fishing or transporting fish is permitted to be carried out; (g) the vessel that is permitted to be used and the persons who are permitted to operate it; (h) the type, size and quantity of fishing gear and equipment that is permitted to be used and the manner in which it is permitted to be used; (i) the specific location at which fishing gear is permitted to be set; (j) the distance to be maintained between fishing gear; (k) information that the holder of the licence shall report to the Department prior to commencement of a fishing trip with respect to where and when fishing will be carried out, including the method by which, the times at which and the person to whom the report is to be made; (l) information that the master of the vessel shall report to the Department from sea, including the method by which, the times at which and the person to whom the report is to be made; (m) the location and times at which landing of fish from the vessel is permitted; (n) verification by an observer of the weight and species of any fish caught and retained; (o) the method permitted for landing of fish from the vessel and the method by which the weight of the fish is to be determined; (p) records that the master of the vessel shall keep of any fishing activity carried out under the licence or of the sale or transporting of fish caught under the licence, including the manner and form in which the records are to be kept, the times at which and the person to whom the records are to be produced and the period for which the records are to be retained; (q) the type, size and colour of containers to hold or transport fish and the marking of such containers for identification of the source of the fish; (r) the marking or tagging of fish for identification of the source of the fish; (s) the segregation of fish by species on board the vessel; (t) the time within which findings and data obtained as a result of fishing for an experimental or scientific purpose are to be forwarded to the Minister; (u) the manner in which fish caught for an educational or public display purpose are to be held and transported; (v) the species and quantities of fish that may be released or transferred under a licence issued under Part VIII; (w) the period during which the release or transfer of fish is to be carried out under a licence issued under Part VIII; (x) the waters or fish rearing facility into which the fish are to be released or transferred under a licence issued under Part VIII; (y) the waters or fish rearing facility from which the fish are to be taken under a licence issued under Part VIII; (z) the method and manner of transporting the fish to be released or transferred under a licence issued under Part VIII; and (z.1) the method of disposing of any water, container or other material used in the transporting of fish under a licence issued under Part VIII.
|
|
22. (1) Pour une gestion et une surveillance judicieuses des pêches et pour la conservation et la protection du poisson, le ministre peut indiquer sur un permis toute condition compatible avec le présent règlement et avec les règlements énumérés au paragraphe 3(4), notamment une ou plusieurs des conditions concernant ce qui suit :
a) les espèces et quantités de poissons qui peuvent être prises ou transportées; b) l’âge, le sexe, l’étape de développement ou la taille des poissons qui peuvent être pris ou transportés; c) les eaux dans lesquelles la pêche peut être pratiquée; d) les endroits à partir desquels ou vers lesquels le poisson peut être transporté; e) les bateaux à partir desquels ou vers lesquels le poisson peut être transbordé; f) la période pendant laquelle la pêche peut être pratiquée ou le transport du poisson peut être effectué; g) le bateau qui peut être utilisé et les personnes qui peuvent l’exploiter; h) le type et la quantité d’engins et d’équipements de pêche qui peuvent être utilisés et leur grosseur ainsi que la manière dont ils doivent être utilisés; i) l’endroit précis où les engins de pêche peuvent être mouillés; j) la distance à garder entre les engins de pêche; k) les renseignements que le titulaire du permis doit, avant d’aller à la pêche, transmettre au ministère quant à l’endroit et au moment où la pêche sera pratiquée, ainsi que leur mode de transmission, le moment de leur transmission et leur destinataire; l) les renseignements que le capitaine du bateau doit transmettre en mer au ministère, ainsi que leur mode de transmission, le moment de leur transmission et leur destinataire; m) l’endroit et le moment où le poisson peut être débarqué; n) la vérification, par l’observateur, du poids et de l’espèce de tout poisson pris et gardé; o) la méthode suivant laquelle le poisson peut être débarqué et la méthode suivant laquelle il doit être pesé; p) les registres que le capitaine du bateau doit tenir des activités de pêche entreprises sous le régime du permis ou de la vente ou du transport du poisson pris sous le régime du permis, ainsi que la façon de tenir ces registres, leur forme, la fréquence de leur présentation, la personne à qui ils doivent être présentés, et la période pendant laquelle ils doivent être conservés; q) le type, la grosseur et la couleur des conteneurs utilisés pour garder ou transporter le poisson et l’identification des conteneurs permettant de déterminer la provenance du poisson; r) l’identification et l’étiquetage du poisson permettant de déterminer sa provenance; s) la séparation, à bord du bateau, des poissons selon leur espèce; t) le délai accordé pour faire parvenir au ministre les résultats et les données obtenus à la suite de la pêche effectuée à des fins expérimentales ou scientifiques; u) la manière dont il faut garder ou transporter le poisson pris à des fins éducatives ou pour exposition au public; v) les espèces et la quantité de poissons qu’il est permis, en vertu d’un permis délivré en vertu de la partie VIII, de libérer ou de transférer; w) la période durant laquelle il faut, aux termes d’un permis délivré en vertu de la partie VIII, libérer ou transférer le poisson; x) les eaux ou l’installation d’élevage dans lesquelles le poisson doit, aux termes d’un permis délivré en vertu de la partie VIII, être libéré ou transféré; y) les eaux ou l’installation d’élevage d’où seront pris les poissons en vertu d’un permis délivré en vertu de la partie VIII; z) la méthode à utiliser et la façon dont il faut procéder pour transporter le poisson qui doit être libéré ou transféré aux termes d’un permis délivré en vertu de la partie VIII; z.1) la méthode à utiliser pour se défaire de l’eau, du conteneur ou des autres articles ayant servi au transport du poisson aux termes d’un permis délivré en vertu de la partie VIII. |
|
|
|
|
51. No person shall fish for experimental, scientific, educational or public display purposes unless authorized to do so under a licence.
51. Il est interdit de pêcher à des fins expérimentales, scientifiques, éducatives ou pour exposition au public à moins d’y être autorisé par un permis.
52. Notwithstanding any provisions of any of the Regulations listed in subsection 3(4), the Minister may issue a licence if fishing for experimental, scientific, educational or public display purposes would be in keeping with the proper management and control of fisheries.
52. Malgré les dispositions des règlements énumérés au paragraphe 3(4), le ministre peut délivrer un permis si la pêche à des fins expérimentales, scientifiques, éducatives ou pour exposition au public est en accord avec la gestion et la surveillance judicieuses des pêches.
* * * * * * * *
[13] The case at bar raises the following issues:
1. Does the Minister have unlimited jurisdiction to issue licences for scientific purposes?
2. When the Minister made his decision to reject the licence application, did he consider irrelevant matters or act in bad faith or in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner?
3. Did the Minister observe the rules of natural justice and fairness in assessing the licence application made by Marine Research?
* * * * * * * *
1. Does the Minister have unlimited jurisdiction to issue licences for scientific purposes?
[14] Under sections 7 of the Act and 51 and 52 of the Regulations, it is clear that the Minister has jurisdiction to issue fishing licences for scientific purposes. The Minister’s power to issue a fishing licence is discretionary: there is nothing in law requiring him to do so.
[15] The applicant argued that the exercise by the Minister of his or her discretionary power to issue a fishing licence for scientific purposes is limited by section 52 of the Regulations. In other words, when the fishing proposed in connection with an application for a fishing licence for scientific purposes is consistent with the proper management and control of fisheries, the Minister is bound to issue the licence. I do not share that view. The only limitation imposed on the Minister in exercising his or her discretion is a duty to base the decision on relevant considerations, avoid arbitrariness and act in good faith (see Comeau’s Sea Foods v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 12, at paragraphs 34 and 36, and Delisle v. Canada, [1991] F.C.J. No. 459 (T.D.) (QL)).
[16] The applicant maintained that Charles Gaudet did not have the necessary expertise to make the decision in issue. I do not agree. It is accepted in law that the Minister may delegate the right to act on the issuance of scientific licences to officials in his Department with the necessary expertise. We must assume that Mr. Gaudet, who holds the position of Director of Business Systems and Strategic Planning, and is responsible for issuing licences in the region, has the expertise required for this purpose (R. v. Harrison, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 238, at 245-246). This presumption is reinforced by the fact that Mr. Gaudet was involved with policies on licence issuance for a period of some six years between 1984 and 1990 and has held the position of Director of Administrative Systems and Strategic Planning for the DFO since April 2002.
2. When the Minister made his decision to reject the licence application, did he consider irrelevant matters or act in bad faith or in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner?
[17] The standard of review applicable to the decision in issue is that of the patently unreasonable decision (Tucker v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), November 16, 2000, [2000] F.C.J. No. 1868, affirmed by Tucker v. Canada, [2001] FCA 384). First, the Minister must base his decision on relevant factors, avoid arbitrariness and act in good faith, as the Supreme Court of Canada explained in Comeau’s Sea Foods, supra. The result is an administrative system based primarily on the Minister’s discretion.
[18] The applicant refused to consult with stakeholders in the fishing industry, feeling that its project was a private for-profit operation and the DFO was not competent to require that a consultation be held. The evidence shows that the DFO commonly consults with persons in the industry who could be affected by the decision. On November 3, 2004, the DFO clearly identified the relevant stakeholders in the industry. In my opinion, the applicant did not establish that it was patently unreasonable for the DFO to ask that a consultation be held.
[19] The DFO asked for information on the potential impact of the project, including the number of stations anticipated, according to the type of fishing gear and places where samples would be taken. Sampling procedures are documents which contain information pertaining, for instance, to methodology and details of the research activity, like the number of stations, type of trawl net, length of each line, crab parts measured on board the vessel and so on. Obtaining these procedures is relevant in particular in that reviewing them enables the DFO to determine whether all steps have been taken to minimize the impact on species and their habitat. The applicant refused to provide the sampling procedures on the ground that they were the applicant’s intellectual property. The respondent submitted that whatever may be the rights held by a licence applicant over a given document, under paragraph 8(1)(a) of the Regulations, the DFO, is entitled to ask for a copy of the document. The DFO is entitled to request documents and information which can assist it in making its decision. Further, the evidence shows that decisions on applications for fishing licences for scientific purposes are made following consultations between several DFO officials with various fields of expertise. Following these consultations, the DFO science sector said that, in its opinion, in order to assess the possible impact of the applicant’s project, the DFO had to examine the procedures. In my opinion, the applicant’s allegation that the sampling procedures are not relevant to the determination of the impact of its project is not supported by the evidence.
[20] Under paragraphs 22(1)(h), (i) and (j) of the Regulations, the Minister is entitled to impose a condition on a licence concerning “the type, size and quantity of fishing gear and equipment that is permitted to be used and the manner in which it is permitted to be used”, “the specific location at which fishing gear is permitted to be set” and “the distance to be maintained between fishing gear”. By letters of September 17 and November 3, 2004, the DFO notified the applicant that it intended to impose a condition regarding the fishing gear and its use, stating that [TRANSLATION] “the scientific procedures and coordinates of the geographic limits of the project would be part of the licence conditions”. Without specific information on the manner in which the applicant intended to use the fishing gear, the Minister was not able to exercise the power conferred on him by paragraphs 22(1)(h), (i) and (j) of the Regulations.
[21] Paragraph 22(1)(c) of the Regulations provides that the Minister is entitled to specify a condition in a licence regarding “the waters in which fishing is permitted to be carried out”. I do not think it is patently unreasonable for the DFO to require the geographical coordinates of the project in order to include them in the licence conditions.
[22] By its letters of September 17 and November 3, 2004, the DFO notified the applicant that [TRANSLATION] “the information collected by the applicant in fishing activities had to be provided to the DFO”. Under paragraph 22(1)(t) of the Regulations, the DFO is entitled to specify in a licence a condition concerning “the time within which findings and data obtained as a result of fishing for an experimental or scientific purpose are to be forwarded to the Minister”. In view of this provision in the Regulations, I do not consider the Minister’s request unreasonable.
[23] In brief, the Minister’s decision to reject the licence application is far from patently unreasonable: quite the contrary. It is the actions of the applicant – or rather its inaction – that prevented the Minister from exercising his discretion. The Minister imposed conditions, which he was entitled to do under the Regulations, and there is no evidence that he acted in bad faith or arbitrarily.
3. Did the Minister observe the rules of natural justice and fairness in assessing the licence application made by Marine Research?
[24] The applicant submitted that the Minister made no effort to discuss the licence application with representatives of Marine Research. Here again, I cannot accept this. In a letter dated September 17, 2004, the DFO indicated to the applicant its desire to discuss the project with the latter. The applicant’s reply to this was to initiate proceedings for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. It seems clear to the Court that the applicant had no wish to have any discussions with the DFO. This is confirmed by subsequent events. Following the applicant’s discontinuance of the mandamus proceedings on October 28, 2004, the DFO sent the applicant another letter dated November 3, 2004. In that letter, the DFO indicated to the applicant in particular that it was prepared to meet with the latter to [TRANSLATION] “discuss and clarify information and positions”. On the same day, counsel for the applicant filed this application for judicial review. I consider that the DFO made sufficient efforts to give the applicant an opportunity to explain its project; the rules of natural justice applicable in the context of a licence application were thus fully observed.
[25] For all these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
|
|
“Yvon Pinard” JUDGE |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 29, 2005
Certified true translation
François Brunet, LLB, BCL
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-1963-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: MARINE RESEARCH INC., an entity duly incorporated under the laws of the province of New Brunswick v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Fredericton, New Brunswick
DATE OF HEARING: September 6, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: September 29, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Brigitte Sivret FOR THE APPLICANT
Ginette Mazerolle FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Brigitte Sivret FOR THE APPLICANT
Bathurst, New Brunswick
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada