Alberta Wilderness Association, Canadian Nature Federation, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Jasper Environmental Association and Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development (Appellants) (Applicants) v. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Cardinal River Coals Ltd. (Respondents) (Respondents) and Brian Bietz, Gordon Miller and Tom Beck in their capacity as a Review Panel Established Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to Review the Cheviot Coal Project (Interveners) (Interveners)

Pays/Territoire: Canada
Type de cour: Autres
Date: Déc 4, 1998
Source: UNEP, InforMEA

Nom du tribunal: Federal Court of Appeal
Juge: Strayer
Robertson
Sexton
Numéro de référence: [1999] 1 F.C. 483
Langue: Anglais
Sujet: Questions juridiques
Mot clé: EIA Procédures judiciaires/procédures administratives

Résumé: This was an appeal from the Trial Division’s dismissal of the appellants’ application for judicial review of a report of the Joint Review Panel, which contained an environmental assessment of a proposal to build and operate a 23 km open-pit coal mine three km east of Jasper National Park. Cardinal River Coals Ltd. applied to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for authorizations under the Fisheries Act for its project. The project was referred to the Panel which issued a report. The Minister issued a federal response which indicated that authorizations would be issued. On judicial review of the report, the Applications Judge held that the appellants were obligated to challenge the federal response in order to question the sufficiency of the panel report and to ground their claim of prohibition against the Minister. The judicial review application was dismissed because the federal response issued by the Minister had not been challenged and therefore constituted a barrier to the appellants’ claim. The merits of the appellants’ argument were not addressed. The issue was whether the existence of an unchallenged federal response should bar the appellants from seeking prohibition against the Minister for future authorizations. The Federal Court of Appeal held that the appeal should be allowed. It was of the view that the Applications Judge erred in holding that the response superseded the report. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), section 5 required that an environmental assessment be completed before the Minister could issue authorizations. The Minister had no jurisdiction to issue authorizations in the absence of an environmental assessment. That a federal response had been issued and remained unchallenged did not change these requirements. Besides that, the federal response did not supersede the panel report, nor could it potentially cure any deficiencies therein. The two were separate statutory steps with distinct purposes and functions. Thus, the appellants were entitled to argue the merits of their case. The Applications Judge should have proceeded to analyze the arguments advanced by the appellants, in order to decide whether a proper environmental assessment had been conducted by the Joint Panel. The matter was remitted to the Trial Division.
Texte intégral: 1998fca10319.html