Western Canada Wilderness Committee v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans)

Western Canada Wilderness Committee v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2014-02-14
Neutral citation
2014 FC 148
File numbers
T-1777-12
Decision Content
Date: 20140214
Docket:
T-1777-12
Citation: 2014 FC 148
Ottawa, Ontario, February 14, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
WESTERN CANADA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION, GREENPEACE CANADA, SIERRA CLUB OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FOUNDATION, AND
WILDSIGHT
Applicants
And
MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS AND
MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Where a species is identified as being endangered, threatened or extirpated, the Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29 (“SARA” or “the Act”) requires that a proposed recovery strategy for the species in question be published by the competent minister within a fixed period of time. The statute further requires the Minister to publish a final recovery strategy shortly thereafter.
[2] The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did not comply with the statutory timelines for the preparation and publication of recovery strategies for the White Sturgeon, Nechako River population (the “Nechako White Sturgeon”) and the Humpback Whale, North Pacific population (the “Pacific Humpback Whale”). Nor did the Minister of the Environment comply with the statutory timelines for the preparation and publication of recovery strategies for the Marbled Murrelet and the Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain population (the Southern Mountain Caribou”). These are the four species at issue in these consolidated applications for judicial review (collectively “the four species”).
[3] The Ministers’ failure to act in a timely fashion in relation to the four species led the applicants to commence these applications for judicial review. The applicants seek declaratory relief regarding the Ministers’ conduct and orders of mandamus to compel the Ministers to perform their statutory duties in relation to the four species.
[4] The commencement of this litigation prompted the publication of proposed recovery strategies for three of the four species shortly before the start of the hearing, as well as the publication of a final recovery strategy for one of these species. A proposed recovery strategy was published for the fourth species shortly after the hearing was concluded. In each case, however, the proposed recovery strategy was published several years after the expiry of the relevant statutory timeline.
[5] The Ministers admit that they have failed to comply with their statutory obligations under SARA. Where they disagree with the applicants is in relation to the legal consequences that should follow from this breach.
[6] For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that the applications for judicial review should be granted, and that in light of the egregious delays in each case, a declaration should issue in relation to the Ministers’ conduct.
[7] Given that proposed recovery strategies have now been published for all four of the species at issue, the applications for mandamus will be dismissed insofar as they relate to proposed recovery strategies. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, I will retain jurisdiction over this matter so as to allow the parties to make further submissions as to whether orders of mandamus should issue in relation to the publication of final recovery strategies for the three species for which such strategies have not yet been published.
The Parties
[8] The applicants, the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, the David Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace Canada, the Sierra Club of British Columbia Foundation and Wildsight are non-governmental organizations working to protect Canada’s environment and preserve Canada’s species at risk. They identify themselves as public interest litigants who have an interest in the protection and recovery of species at risk in Canada.
[9] No issue has been taken by the Ministers with respect to the applicants’ standing to bring these applications.
[10] The respondent Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister of the Environment are “competent ministers” under section 2 of SARA responsible for the four species in issue in these applications. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the competent minister for the Nechako White Sturgeon and the Pacific Humpback Whale, whereas the Minister of the Environment is the competent minister for the Marbled Murrelet and the Southern Mountain Caribou.
The Species at Risk Act
[11] The relevant provisions of SARA came into force on June 5, 2003. Enactment of SARA had the effect of incorporating the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (negotiated under the guidance of the United Nations and ratified by Canada in December 1992) into Canadian legislation.
[12] The purposes of SARA are identified in section 6 of the Act as being “...to prevent wildlife species from becoming extirpated or becoming extinct, to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity and to manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened”. The full text of the relevant provisions of SARA are attached as an appendix to these reasons.
[13] Section 2 of the Act defines “species at risk” as meaning “an extirpated, endangered or threatened species or a species of special concern”. An “extirpated species” is one “that no longer exists in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere in the wild”. An “endangered species” is “a wildlife species that is facing imminent extirpation or extinction”, whereas a “threatened species” is “a wildlife species that is likely to become an endangered species if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction”. Finally, “a species of special concern” is “a wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats”.
[14] SARA creates a process for the classification of species by level of risk. Section 14 of the Act establishes the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), which is an independent committee of experts. Pursuant to subsection 15(1) of the Act, COSEWIC is mandated to assess the status of each wildlife species that it considers to be at risk, identify existing and potential threats to the species, and classify the species as being extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened or of special concern.
[15] If a species is classified as being “at risk”, then the Minister of the Environment must make a recommendation to the Governor in Council to either list the species in Schedule 1 to the Act with the classification assigned by COSEWIC, not list the species or send the matter back to COSEWIC for reconsideration.
[16] Once a species is listed in Schedule 1 to the Act, section 37(1) provides that the competent minister must prepare a recovery strategy for the species in question and statutory timelines begin to run.
[17] Section 42(1) of the Act provides that in the case of an endangered species, the competent minister must include a proposed recovery strategy for the species in the public registry established under section 120 of the Act within one year of the species being listed in Schedule 1. A proposed recovery strategy must be posted in the public registry within two years after the species is listed in the case of threatened or extirpated species.
[18] Where species are listed in Schedule 1 on the day that the relevant provisions of the Act came into effect, section 42(2) of SARA requires that the competent minister must include a proposed recovery strategy in the public registry within three years of that date, in the case of endangered species, and within four years, in the case of threatened or extirpated species.
[19] Where a species is added to Schedule 1 by the Governor in Council as the result of an assessment under section 130 of the Act, section 132 of SARA requires that a recovery strategy for the species must be prepared within three years in the case of endangered species, and within four years in the case of threatened species.
[20] Regardless of the process followed in listing the species, once a proposed recovery strategy has been posted for a species at risk, section 43 of the Act provides a 60 day period for public comment. The competent minister then has a further 30 days in which to review the comments received, make the appropriate changes and finalize the recovery strategy by posting it in the public registry.
[21] Recovery strategies must address the threats to the survival of the species, including any loss of critical habitat. The Minister must then prepare an action plan based upon the recovery strategy. There is no statutory timeline for the preparation of an action plan.
[22] As noted above, the timelines for the production of proposed and final recovery strategies depend on the level of risk assessed, and which of several processes was followed in relation to the listing of the species in question. I do not understand there to be any material disagreement between the parties with respect to the applicable timelines identified in the following paragraphs.
Nechako White Sturgeon
[23] The Nechako White Sturgeon was listed as an endangered species on Schedule 1 of SARA on August 15, 2006, as a result of an assessment under section 130 of the Act. The respondents admit that in accordance with section 132 of the Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was required to post a proposed recovery strategy for the Nechako White Sturgeon in the public registry created under the Act within three years - that is by August 15, 2009. The Act further required that a final recovery strategy be posted in the public registry by no later than November 16, 2009.
[24] At the time that the applicants commenced their application for mandamus with respect to the proposed recovery strategy for the Nechako White Sturgeon on September 25, 2012, the proposed recovery strategy had not yet been posted and was more than three years overdue.
[25] The respondents also admit that as a result of the commencement of this litigation, a decision was made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to prioritize this case. This led to a proposed recovery strategy for the Nechako White Sturgeon being posted in the public registry in mid-December, 2013 - less than a month before the start of this hearing, and more than four years after the statutory time limit for the posting of such a document had passed.
Pacific Humpback Whale
[26] The Pacific Humpback Whale was listed as a threatened species in Schedule 1 of the SARA on January 12, 2005, as the result of an assessment under section 130 of the Act. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was therefore required to post a proposed recovery strategy for the Pacific Humpback Whale in the public registry by January 12, 2009, with a final recovery strategy due by April 14, 2009.
[27] At the time that the applicants commenced their application for mandamus with respect to the proposed recovery strategy for the Pacific Humpback Whale, the proposed recovery strategy had not yet been posted and was nearly four years late.
[28] As was the case with the Nechako White Sturgeon, the commencement of this litigation caused the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to move on this case. A proposed recovery strategy for the Pacific Humpback Whale was posted in the public registry on July 17, 2013, and a final recovery strategy was released on October 21, 2013 - more than four years after it was due.
[29] Because a final recovery strategy has now been posted for the Pacific Humpback Whale, the applicants are no longer seeking an order of mandamus with respect to this species, although they maintain their claim for declaratory relief.
Marbled Murrelet
[30] The Marbled Murrelet is a small fish-eating sea bird that forages in British Columbia coastal waters and adjacent old-growth forests. The Marbled Murrelet was listed as a threatened species on June 5, 2003. As a consequence, a proposed recovery strategy was to have been posted by no later than June 5, 2007, with the final strategy due by September 6, 2007.
[31] At the time that the applicants commenced their application for mandamus with respect to the proposed recovery strategy for the Marbled Murrelet in September of 2012, no proposed recovery strategy had yet been posted in the public registry and it was more than five years late.
[32] The commencement of this litigation also prompted the Minister of the Environment to move this case forward, and a proposed recovery strategy for the Marbled Murrelet was posted in the public registry on January 7, 2014 - the day before the start of the hearing, and some six and half years after the statutory time limit for the posting of such a document had passed.
Southern Mountain Caribou
[33] The Southern Mountain Caribou was listed as a threatened species on June 5, 2003. A proposed recovery strategy should therefore have been posted by no later than June 5, 2007, with the final recovery strategy required to have been posted by September 6, 2007. No proposed recovery strategy for the Southern Mountain Caribou had been posted at the time that this case was heard. However, counsel for respondents advised that the Minister of the Environment had committed to posting a proposed recovery strategy by January 17, 2014, and I was subsequently advised by that this in fact occurred on that date - some six and a half years after it was due.
The Applications for Judicial Review
[34] The applicants commenced their four applications for judicial review on September 25, 2012. They chose a terrestrial mammal and a migratory bird for whom the Minister of the Environment was responsible, together with an aquatic mammal and a fish under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as the subjects of their applications.
[35] The applicants characterize these four applications as being representative of the endemic systemic problems that have been encountered with both the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment in relation to the implementation of the recovery strategy provisions of SARA.
[36] By way of relief, the applicants seek a declaration declaring unlawful the Ministers’ ongoing failure or refusal to include proposed recovery strategies for the four species in the public registry as he or she was required to do pursuant to the provisions of SARA.
[37] The applications also seek orders of mandamus compelling the competent minister to include proposed recovery strategies for each of the four species in the public registry within 30 days of the date of the Court’s judgment and to include final recovery strategies for the four species in the public registry within 90 days from the date on which the relevant proposed recovery strategy is included in the public registry.
[38] Finally, the applicants seek their costs, if successful, or an order that the applicants not be required to pay the Ministers’ costs, in the event the applications are dismissed.
[39] By Order of Prothonotary Lafrenière, the four applications were consolidated and ordered to be heard together on the basis of a common evidentiary record.
The Minsters’ Concessions
[40] The Ministers have made a number of admissions and concessions that have greatly assisted in limiting and focusing the issues in this case.
[41] In particular, the Ministers acknowledge that:
1. SARA does not confer any discretion on the Ministers to extend the time for the performance of their statutory duties with respect to the preparation and posting of proposed and final recovery strategies for species at risk;
2. The Ministers are legally required to comply with the statutory timelines and they have not done so in these cases;
3. The breaches of the statutory timelines at issue in these proceedings were not minor: there were “substantial delays” in the preparation of the proposed recovery strategies for each of the four species, and the posting of the documents was “seriously overdue”; and
4. While the Ministers have provided explanations for the delays in posting the proposed recovery strategies for each of the four species, these explanations do not change the fact that the Ministers have failed to comply with the provisions of SARA.
[42] Counsel for the respondents states that the explanations provided for the delays in posting draft recovery strategies for the four species are not being offered as a justification for the Ministers’ failure to comply with the provisions of the Act. Rather the reasons for the delays are something that the Court should take into account in deciding whether or not mandamus should issue, and in determining the terms of any such order.
[43] The respondents have provided extensive affidavit evidence from four affiants: two senior managers within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and two from Environment Canada.
[44] Before reviewing the explanations provided by the Ministers, however, it is first necessary to address the motions brought by the parties with respect to the affidavit evidence filed in this matter.
The Motions to Strike
[45] The applicants brought a motion to strike portions of the respondents’ evidence prior to commencement of the hearing. The respondents then brought a cross-motion seeking to strike portions of the affidavit of the applicants’ main affiant, which Prothonotary Lafrenière described in his August 8, 2013 Order as being essentially a “‘tit-for-tat’ reaction”, rather than one motivated by a genuine concern about prejudice arising out of the affidavit in issue.
[46] Prothonotary Lafrenière agreed with the applicants that portions of the respondents’ affidavits “contain some hearsay, speculation, arguments and conclusions rather than facts, and opinion evidence”. However, he was not persuaded that leaving the impugned evidence in the record would give rise to any serious prejudice or impede the orderly disposition of these proceedings. Consequently, he dismissed both motions, without prejudice to the rights of the parties to renew their arguments at the hearing on the merits.
[47] At the hearing, the parties agreed that they were content to leave the impugned portions of their opponents’ evidence in the record, and to have their objections taken into account by the Court in determining the weight to be ascribed to the competing evidence. The applicants also confirmed that they are no longer seeking leave to file further affidavits in this matter in response to some of the respondents’ evidence.
[48] In light of the recent developments in this case, as well as the various concessions and admissions made by counsel for the Ministers, it has not been necessary to review the parties’ evidence in any detail in these reasons. While I agree with the applicants that there are frailties in some of the respondents’ evidence, I have nevertheless taken all of the evidence into account in arriving at my decision.
The Ministers’ Explanations
[49] Although the facts giving rise to the delays in posting proposed recovery strategies differ somewhat from species to species, the respondents highlight four central challenges they say that they faced in preparing proposed recovery strategies for the four species.
[50] First, the enactment of SARA required the Ministers to develop new policies, standards, administrative structures and consultation processes. They also had to acquire the scientific expertise that was required to implement the legislation. All of this took time.
[51] Secondly, several of the respondents’ affiants attribute at least some of the delays in producing recovery strategies to “organizational capacity issues”, including staff turnover. Delays were also attributed to the need to manage competing legal duties, including the need to consult with stakeholders including provincial governments, First Nations, landowners and industry representatives.
[52] It should, however, be noted that although a lack of resources was a recurring theme in the respondents’ evidence, counsel for the respondents advised the Court that he had been specifically instructed not to raise a lack of resources as a justification for the delay in posting proposed recovery strategies for the four species.
[53] Thirdly, the Ministers say that they faced scientific challenges, particularly in relation to the identification of critical habitat for the species in question.
[54] “Critical habitat” is defined in section 2 of SARA as “habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species and that is identified as the species’ critical habitat in the recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species”. The identification of the species’ critical habitat is necessary to the survival and recovery of a species: indeed, the preamble to SARA describes the preservation of the habitat of species at risk as being “key to their conservation”.
[55] Finally, the Ministers describe the challenges that they say they faced in responding to change, in particular, the evolving understanding of the law resulting from various decisions of this Court. For example, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans undertook “an extensive policy analysis” in order to develop new operational guidelines for identifying critical habitat in the wake of this Court’s decisions in Environmental Defence Canada v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), 2009 FC 878, 349 F.T.R. 225 (“Nooksack Dace”) and Georgia Strait Alliance v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), 2010 FC 1233, [2012] 3 F.C.R. 136 rev’d in part on other grounds 2012 FCA 40, 427 N.R. 110 (“Orca”).
The Consequences of the Ministers’ Failure to Act
[56] The applicants point out that the failure to post recovery strategies for the four species in a timely manner has had adverse consequences for the species as it deprives them of an identified critical habitat. This in turn prevents the implementations of recovery measures, and denies the species the legal protection of their critical habitat and the prohibition of its destruction.
[57] The applicants are particularly concerned that the critical habitat of the four species is at risk from industrial development affecting the coast of British Columbia. As an example, the applicants cite Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline development project which, they say, will have a negative impact on all four of the species at issue in these applications. I do not understand the respondents to take issue with this proposition, although they do deny that recovery strategies have been intentionally delayed in order to facilitate industrial development.
[58] The Ministers submit that the work done in the preparation of proposed recovery strategies for the four species was used by their Departments in formulating submissions to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel. The submissions related to the potential impact of the project on the four species and potential mitigation measures to lessen those impacts.
[59] I accept that the work done by the Ministers in relation to proposed recovery strategies for the four species may well have been of assistance in formulating submissions to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel with respect to the potential impact of the project on the four species.
[60] That said, the absence of posted recovery strategies deprives the Ministers of considerable leverage in dealing with the impact of industrial development on species at risk. Moreover, the making of submissions to a regulatory panel of this nature cannot be equated to the level of protection that would be provided to the four species, had recovery strategies been posted for them in a timely fashion. As the applicants point out, the respondents’ statutory duties to prevent the destruction of “critical habitat” are not generally triggered until such habitat has been identified in a recovery strategy or action plan for the species.
The Issues
[61] The parties have characterized the issues raised by these applications in different ways. I agree with the respondents that the cases ultimately raise two fundamental questions. The first is whether there has been a breach of the Ministers’ statutory duty to post proposed recovery strategies for the four species within the statutory timelines. As noted earlier, the respondents concede that there has indeed been such a statutory breach.
[62] This leads us to the second question, which is what consequences should flow from that breach? I will deal with the issues identified by the applicants, including the relevance of a standard of review analysis to this case and the legal nature of the statutory timelines in issue, in that context.
Should Declaratory Relief be Granted?
[63] The Ministers submit that declaratory relief should not be granted in this case. According to the Ministers, the fact that they have conceded that they were legally required to meet the statutory timelines for the posting of proposed recovery strategies and that they failed to do so means that declarations would serve no practical utility.
[64] In support of this contention, the respondents rely on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Lax Kw'alaams Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 56, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 535, at para. 14, where the Court stated that “Courts generally do not make declarations in relation to matters not in dispute between the parties to the litigation”. See also Solosky v Her Majesty the Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821, 105 D.L.R. (3d) 745.
[65] While this is unquestionably true as a general proposition, the Court has a broad discretionary power in relation to the granting of declaratory relief, and there are cases where the granting of such relief may nevertheless be appropriate: see, for example, K'Omoks First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC 1160, 419 F.T.R. 144, at para. 44. This is just such a case.
[66] Declaratory relief may address the legality of government action, both prospectively and retrospectively: Reece v. Edmonton (City), 2011 ABCA 238, 335 DLR (4th) 600, at para. 163, per Chief Justice Fraser, dissenting, but not on this point. Moreover, public officials are not above the law. If an official acts contrary to a statute, the Courts are entitled to so declare: see Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 757, 372 F.T.R. 40, at para. 40, citing Canada v. Kelso, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 199 at 210.
[67] A review of the record in these matters gives rise to a number of concerns. The development of a proposed recovery strategy for a species at risk is undoubtedly a complex process involving the need to reconcile competing statutory requirements and Departmental priorities, and to consult with multiple stakeholders, other levels of government and First Nations. The process also presents the Ministers with various administrative challenges, and involves an evolving base of scientific knowledge. One has to assume, however, that Parliament knew what it was doing when it established the timelines for the preparation of proposed recovery strategies in sections 42 and 132 of SARA.
[68] It is apparent that the posting of proposed recovery strategies were delayed in these cases, in part, as a result of a desire to achieve consensus amongst the stakeholders. This is particularly so for the aquatic species under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
[69] While the achievement of a consensus may be desirable, it is not a legislative requirement for a recovery strategy. Indeed, section 39 of SARA only contemplates that there be cooperation with others “to the extent possible”. Subject to the Ministers’ constitutional obligations to consult with First Nations, I agree with the applicants that consensus should not be pursued at the expense of compliance with the Ministers’ statutory obligations.
[70] Furthermore, as one of the Ministers’ own affiants has observed, a recovery strategy should be science-based, not consensus-based: see the cross-examination of Robert McLean, the Executive Director of Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service, at pages 3007 and 3022 of the applicants’ record. See also Nooksack Dace, at para. 41.
[71] Insofar as the scientific basis for the proposed recovery strategies is concerned, I agree with the applicants that “the perfect should not become the enemy of the good” in these cases. Section 38 of SARA (which incorporates the “precautionary principle” into the Act) is very clear: the preparation of a recovery strategy for a species at risk “should not be postponed for a lack of full scientific certainty”.
[72] The precautionary principle was discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241. Citing the Bergen Ministerial Declaration on Sustainable Development (1990), the Court noted that “[e]nvironmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation”. As a result, “[w]here there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation”: at para. 31
[73] Indeed, as Justice Russell observed in his decision in the Orca case, “[e]ndangered species do not have time to wait for [the competent minister] to ‘get it right’”: at para. 66.
[74] It is also important to remember that proposed recovery strategies are, by their very nature, open to change based upon additional input received by the competent minister through the consultation process. Moreover, the content of final recovery strategies and action plans are not cast in stone. SARA specifically contemplates that amendments can be made to each document at any time (see subsection 45(1) in the case of recovery strategies and subsection 52(1) in the case of action plans).
[75] It is also apparent from a review of the record that conscious decisions were made from time to time within the Ministers’ Departments to delay or defer the preparation of proposed recovery strategies for the four species.
[76] By way of example, in the case of the Marbled Murrelet, multiple proposed recovery strategies were prepared for the bird between 2003 and 2007. A proposed recovery strategy was sent to the headquarters of Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service for approval and posting in February of 2008 (eight months after the expiry of the relevant statutory timeline for the posting of the document).
[77] According to the respondents’ evidence, the proposed recovery strategy was then “queued for review and approval”. However, it was not reviewed by headquarters personnel for over a year. When the document was finally reviewed by the Executive Committee of the Canadian Wildlife Service in the Spring of 2009, certain rewrites to the document were required, although I note that there is some disagreement between the respondents’ affiants as to the extent of the additional work that was necessary in order to finalize the document at the regional level.
[78] According to the affidavit of Dr. Barry Douglas Smith, the Regional Director of Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service’s Pacific and Yukon Region, the re-writes were completed with the intent to post the proposed recovery strategy for the Marbled Murrelet in the public registry by the summer of 2009: Smith affidavit at para. 80. However, the release of this Court’s decision in Alberta Wilderness Assn. v. Canada (Minister of Environment), 2009 FC 710, 349 F.T.R. 63 (“Sage Grouse”) in the summer of 2009 caused publication to be postponed so as to allow for at least a partial identification of the species’ critical habitat.
[79] What happened next? The short answer is: not much. Dr. Smith deposes that due to staff shortages and “the need to make progress against the large number of overdue recovery strategies for other species”, work to identify the critical habitat for the Marbled Murrelet was not completed in 2009-2010 and the decision was made to defer the work to the next financial year: Smith affidavit at para. 84.
[80] However the work was not completed in the 2010-2011 financial year either. Dr. Smith explains in his affidavit that “due to significant capacity constraints” he “deemed it an acceptable risk to prioritize work on species at risk with smaller populations and more immediate threats”: Smith affidavit at para. 85.
[81] Staffing issues also appear to have prevented any substantive work being carried out on the proposed recovery strategy for the Marbled Murrelet in the 2011-2012 fiscal year. Indeed, it was not until it was identified as a priority matter in November of 2012 that substantive work on a proposed recovery strategy for the Marbled Murrelet recommenced - after this litigation had been started, and more than five years after SARA required that a proposed recovery strategy be posted for the bird: Smith affidavit at paras. 86-88.
[82] As was noted earlier, a proposed recovery strategy for the Marbled Murrelet was posted in the public registry on January 7, 2014 - the day before the commencement of this hearing, and some six and half years after the statutory time limit for the posting of such a strategy had passed.
[83] While the cause of much of the delay described by Dr. Smith in his affidavit ultimately boils down to a question of resources, it bears repeating that the Ministers expressly do not rely on a lack of resources as a justification for the delay in relation to the species at issue in these applications.
[84] The commencement of this litigation has caused the responsible Ministers to put these files “on the top of the pile”, with the result that proposed recovery strategies have now been posted for the four species. However, the flurry of recent activity on these files does not address any deterioration in conditions for the four species at issue that may have occurred in the intervening years when the Ministers were in breach of their statutory duties.
[85] It is, moreover, apparent that the delays encountered in these four cases are just the tip of the iceberg. There is clearly an enormous systemic problem within the relevant Ministries, given the respondents’ acknowledgment that there remain some 167 species at risk for which recovery strategies have not yet been developed. In this regard it is noteworthy that the Ministers acknowledge that they have not complied with the statutory timelines for the preparation and posting of proposed recovery strategies for any of the other 167 species.
[86] Indeed, it is reasonable to assume that the acceleration of progress on these four cases in response to the commencement of this litigation could well have caused further delays in the preparation of recovery strategies for other species
[87] However, responding on an ad hoc basis to external pressures such as pending litigation fails to take into account the fact that Parliament has itself assigned priorities in dealing with these matters, by fixing different timelines for the preparation of proposed recovery strategies for listed species that are based upon the extent to which the species are at risk.
[88] The respondents agree that the applicants should not be expected to commence 167 additional applications for judicial review in order to compel the responsible Ministers to comply with their statutory duties. Nor would this be an answer to the underlying systemic problems that exist in the species at risk protection process, as clearly one cannot prioritize every case without rendering prioritization meaningless.
[89] I agree with the respondents that bad faith has not been demonstrated in these cases. However, the respondents also acknowledge that bad faith is not required for declaratory relief to be granted.
[90] The Supreme Court of Canada has observed that adherence to the rule of law is a major feature of the Canadian democracy: Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), 2003 SCC 62, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3 at para. 31. Moreover, as Chief Justice Fraser observed in her dissenting opinion in Reece, the rule of law allows citizens to come to the Courts to enforce the law as against the executive branch of government.
[91] Chief Justice Fraser went on to observe that “… [C]ourts have the right to review actions by the executive branch to determine whether they are in compliance with the law and, where warranted, to declare government action unlawful. This right in the hands of the people is not a threat to democratic governance but its very assertion”: at para. 159.
[92] It is simply not acceptable for the responsible Ministers to continue to miss the mandatory deadlines that have been established by Parliament. In the circumstances of these cases, it is therefore both necessary and appropriate to grant the applicants the declaratory relief that they are seeking, both as an expression of judicial disapproval of the current situation and to encourage future compliance with the statute by the competent ministers.
[93] Indeed, the issues that were originally raised by these applications are “genuine, not moot or hypothetical” insofar as there remain numerous species at risk for which the posting of proposed recovery strategies is long overdue: Danada Enterprises Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC 403, 407 F.T.R. 268 at para. 67. I am, moreover, satisfied that a declaration will serve a useful purpose and will have a “practical effect” in resolving the problems identified by these cases: see Solosky, above, at 832-833.
[94] Accordingly, a declaration will issue declaring the Ministers’ failure to include proposed recovery strategies for the four species in the public registry within the statutory time periods set out in sections 42 and 132 of SARA to be unlawful. Given that the statutory timeline for posting final recovery strategies for three of the four species has not yet passed, and there appears to have been substantial compliance with the statutory timelines for the posting of a final recovery strategy for the Pacific Humpback Whale, I decline to grant any declaratory relief in this regard.
[95] Before leaving this issue, I would note that the parties spent some time in their submissions discussing whether the timelines established by SARA for the posting of proposed recovery strategies were “mandatory” or “directory”. While asserting that this is “an irrelevant distraction” in this case, the applicants nevertheless submit that the timelines are “mandatory”, as SARA provides that relevant competent minister “must” post proposed and final recovery strategies within certain specified timeframes.
[96] In contrast, the respondents contend that the SARA timelines are not mandatory in the “administrative law sense”, but are rather “directory”. In support of this contention, the respondents point out that the duty being discharged is a public one, and the Act does not provide for a penalty for failure to comply with the timelines in issue. Moreover, the balance of inconvenience suggests that the timelines should be interpreted as directory rather than mandatory because interpreting them as mandatory would be contrary to achieving the goals of SARA.
[97] In particular, the respondents say that interpreting the timelines as mandatory would mean that the Ministers would lose the power to post recovery strategies for the species at risk once the deadlines set out in the Act had passed
[98] It is apparent from the jurisprudence cited by the parties that the significance of the distinction between “mandatory” or “directory” timelines is that, as the respondents suggest, a public authority exercising a statutory power loses jurisdiction once the timeline has passed: see Reference r