Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (Appellant) v. Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage and The Thebacha Road Society (Respondents) País/Territorio Canadá Tipo de la corte Otros Fecha Apr 30, 2003 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Federal Court of Appeal Juez RothsteinEvansMalone Número de referencia [2003] 4 F.C. 672, 2003 FCA 197 Idioma Inglés Materia Especies silvestres y ecosistemas Palabra clave EIA Parques nacionales Procedimientos judiciales/procedimientos administrativos Resumen This was an appeal from a Trial Division decision dismissing an application for judicial review of the approval, by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, of a proposal to establish a winter road in Wood Buffalo National Park. Since the proposed road would travel along the route of an abandoned winter road, its construction would result in the destruction of less vegetation than if it were an entirely new road and would leave little permanent trace. It was anticipated that the road would be used principally to connect residents of existing and projected small communities of Aboriginal peoples in and adjacent to the Park. Environmental groups and local residents, including Aboriginal people, were concerned that the road could adversely affect their traplines in the Park. Other individuals, however, supported its construction for the economic and social benefits that it was expected to bring to their isolated communities. Objections to the road were also raised by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), the appellant herein. The Federal Court of Appeal held that the appeal should be dismissed. It noted that the Minister’s interpretation of subsection 8(1) Canada National Parks Act (CNPA) was reviewable on a standard of correctness. Subsection 8(1) conferred power on the Minister to "use and occupy" park land. The Minister’s responsibility for the administration, management and control of parks included meeting the transportation needs of the residents of the isolated communities in the Park, and implied the powers necessary for so doing. The implied powers under subsection 8(1) authorized the Minister to approve the road. The Court was of the view that patent unreasonableness was the applicable standard of review of the Minister’s decision under subsection 8(2). Subsection 8(2) provided that ecological integrity was the first priority. The Court stressed that the Minister had broad responsibility for the administration of national parks, so the standard of review should be at the most deferential end of the range. The Minister had failed to refer specifically to the need to ensure that the maintenance of ecological integrity was the first priority when exercising her power to approve the road under subsection 8(1). However, this did not necessarily mean that it was not in fact considered. It was not patently unreasonable for the Minister to approve a scheme designed principally to alleviate the isolation of residents of the Park even though it did not advance any of the reasons for which national parks were created. It was not the role of a reviewing court to consider whether, given the Minister’s statutory duty to afford the first priority to ecological integrity, she assigned too much weight to the social and economic factors and too little to the ecological. As to damage to the Park’s ecological integrity, there was a rational basis for the Minister’s conclusion that, when combined with mitigative measures and adaptive management techniques designed to identify and deal with unforeseen effects, any adverse environmental effects were unlikely to be significant. Texto completo 2003fca197.html