David Suzuki Foundation v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans)

David Suzuki Foundation v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2010-12-07
Neutral citation
2010 FC 1233
File numbers
T-1552-08, T-541-09
Notes
Reported Decision
Decision Content
Federal Court
Cour fédérale
Date: 20101207
Dockets: T-1552-08, T-541-09
Citation: 2010 FC 1233
Ottawa, Ontario, December 7, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell
Docket: T-1552-08
BETWEEN:
GEORGIA STRAIT ALLIANCE, SIERRA CLUB OF CANADA,
DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION, DOGWOOD INITIATIVE,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE CANADA,
GREENPEACE CANADA,
INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE,
RAINCOAST CONSERVATION SOCIETY, and
WESTERN CANADA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE
Applicants
and
MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Respondent
Docket: T-541-09
AND BETWEEN
DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION, DOGWOOD INITIATIVE,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE CANADA,
GREENPEACE CANADA,
INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE,
RAINCOAST CONSERVATION SOCIETY,
SIERRA CLUB OF CANADA, and
WESTERN CANADA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS,
THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Respondents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND.. 4
Procedural History and Parties. 4
Southern and Northern Resident Killer Whales. 6
Listing and Recovery Planning for the Resident Killer Whales. 7
Recovery Strategy Identifies Critical Habitat 10
180 Days Later, DFO Must Protect Critical Habitat 11
Applications for Judicial Review.. 12
Consolidation. 15
ISSUES. 16
STANDARD OF REVIEW... 23
Applicants’ Arguments on Standard of Review.. 24
Respondents’ Arguments. 25
Appropriate Standard of Review.. 26
ARGUMENTS. 27
The Applicants. 27
The Court should exercise its discretion to hear first moot application. 27
Hearing a moot application. 28
Minister’s duty. 29
Recovery Strategy. 30
Protection Statement 31
Protection Statement is unlawful 31
Fisheries Act 35
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 36
Provincial laws are not laws of Parliament 36
Protection Statement fails to protect all components. 37
Protection Order. 38
Interpretation of section 58. 38
Bilingual interpretation. 38
The Case of Environmental Defence. 41
Unlawful limitation of the scope of the Protection Order. 42
The Respondents. 44
Court should not exercise its jurisdiction. 44
Protection Statement 46
Protection Order application is misguided. 49
Future intentions. 52
Lack of jurisdiction. 53
Improper submissions. 54
Applicants’ Reply. 54
ANALYSIS. 57
General introduction. 57
Protection Order application. 60
Respondents’ grounds. 61
Application is misguided. 61
Order cannot be challenged. 62
Order cannot be more than it is. 67
Attempt to review speculated future intentions. 69
Applicants cannot obtain the declaration sought 74
Protection Statement application. 84
Should the Court hear it?. 84
Adversarial context 86
Judicial economy. 88
Merits of Protection Statement application. 91
Protection Statement 91
Disagreement between the Parties. 92
Legal requirements of a Protection Statement 104
Plain language interpretation of subsection 58(5)(b) 105
Role of a Protection Statement within the SARA scheme. 106
Intention of Parliament – Habitat protection must be mandatory and meaningful 107
Protection Statement unlawfully includes non-statutory instruments. 107
Protection Statement unlawfully cites possible future provisions. 108
Protection Statement unlawfully relies on ministerial discretion. 110
Fisheries Act and Regulations. 111
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 120
Provincial laws are not laws of Parliament 121
Protection Statement fails to set out how all components of critical habitat are legally protected. 121
Conclusions. 122
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] At issue are two consolidated applications for judicial review to challenge related decisions. The first application (Protection Statement Application) challenges the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans’ Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in Canada: Critical Habitat Protection Statement (Protection Statement), which was issued pursuant to subsection 58(5)(b) of the Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29 (SARA, or the Act) on September 10, 2008.
[2] The second application (Protection Order Application) challenges a protection order made in February 2009 by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment (Ministers) to limit the scope of the Critical Habitats of the Northeast Pacific Northern and Southern Resident Populations of the Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) Order (Protection Order), made pursuant to subsection 58(5)(a) of SARA.
BACKGROUND
Procedural History and Parties
[3] These two consolidated applications for judicial review are concerned with the Respondents’ obligations under section 58 of SARA to provide legal protection for the critical habitat of two populations of killer whales.
[4] The first application challenges the September 10, 2008 decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to issue the Protection Statement pursuant to subsection 58(5)(b) of SARA.
[5] The second application challenges the February 2009 decision made jointly by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment to issue the Protection Order under subsections 58(4) and (5) of SARA. Specifically, it challenges the Respondents’ decision to limit the scope of the Protection Order such that it applies only to geospatial areas or geophysical attributes of critical habitat.
[6] The nine Applicants are non-profit environmental organizations from across Canada. They each have a genuine interest in the survival and recovery of the Resident Killer Whales and in the interpretation and application of SARA. The Respondents do not contest the Applicants’ public interest standing before this Court.
[7] The Respondent Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is charged with the duty to protect the critical habitat of any aquatic species, including the Resident Killer Whales.
[8] The Respondent Minister of the Environment, as the Minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency, is charged with the duty to protect critical habitat on federal lands administered by Parks Canada, tiny portions of which overlap with the Resident Killer Whales’ critical habitat at issue in this proceeding.
Southern and Northern Resident Killer Whales
[9] Two distinct populations of killer whales, known as the northern residents and the southern residents (and herein jointly referred to as the Resident Killer Whales) occupy the waters off the west coast of British Columbia.
[10] The southern Resident Killer Whale is an endangered species. Section 2 of SARA defines an “endangered species” as “a wildlife species that is facing imminent extirpation or extinction.”
[11] The northern Resident Killer Whale is a threatened species. Section 2 of SARA defines a “threatened species” as “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.”
[12] The Resident Killer Whale populations are considered at risk because of their small population size and low reproductive rate as well as their exposure to a variety of human-caused threats to both the whales and their habitat. These threats have the potential to prevent their recovery or to cause further declines in population. Principal among these anthropogenic threats are reductions in the availability of salmon prey (i.e. food), environmental contamination and physical and acoustic disturbance.
Listing and Recovery Planning for the Resident Killer Whales
[13] SARA prescribes a process whereby species at risk are listed and given legal protections, with the objective of ensuring recovery of the species back to healthy population levels. To achieve this objective, a recovery strategy is developed and implemented for each species listed as endangered or threatened. Central to the recovery process is the identification and protection of the species’ critical habitat.
[14] Pursuant to the mandatory timelines under section 42(2) of SARA, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) was required to include a proposed recovery strategy for the Resident Killer Whales on the public registry by June 5, 2006. The SARA public registry is established under section 120 for the purpose of facilitating access to documents relating to matters under the Act.
[15] In 2004, DFO convened the Resident Killer Whale Recovery Team (Recovery Team). The Recovery Team, made up of leading independent and governmental experts, was tasked with creating a recovery strategy for the Resident Killer Whales in accordance with SARA.
[16] Over the next year, the Recovery Team met periodically to develop the recovery strategy. The Recovery Team was instructed to identify the critical habitat of the Resident Killer Whales as well as examples of activities likely to destroy critical habitat.
[17] At meetings and in electronic communications, the Recovery Team discussed the biological or ecosystem features of critical habitat. The discussion of biological features of critical habitat focused on the association between salmon abundance and the use of an area by Resident Killer Whales, as well as the acoustic and environmental quality of critical habitat.
[18] The first draft of the recovery strategy was completed on March 15, 2005. It identified critical habitat as well as threats to both the “abiotic” (i.e. geophysical) and “biotic” (i.e. biological) features of critical habitat.
[19] Following extensive review and comment, a final draft recovery strategy was completed for submission to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on May 15, 2006 (May 2006 Draft Recovery Strategy). The May 2006 Draft Recovery Strategy identified critical habitat as a set of physical and biological features occurring at a specific geospatial location. It also identified threats to those features.
[20] The May 2006 Draft Recovery Strategy was never delivered to the Minister. Instead, in August 2006, the Recovery Team was informed that the May 2006 Draft Recovery Strategy had been edited and that information identifying critical habitat had been removed pursuant to DFO policy.
[21] A lengthy dispute followed between members of the Recovery Team and DFO bureaucrats. In March 2007, the critical habitat section of the May 2006 Draft Recovery Strategy was reinstated.
[22] In May 2007, the now-restored document was again sent out for review by government agencies. During the course of that review another attempt was made, this time by the Department of National Defence, to edit the critical habitat section. The proposed revisions related to the acoustic features of critical habitat and to threats to critical habitat caused by underwater noise. Members of the Recovery Team successfully objected to many of the proposed editorial changes.
[23] On June 21, 2007, pursuant to section 42(1) of SARA, DFO posted the Proposed Recovery Strategy for the Resident Killer Whales to the public registry (Proposed Recovery Strategy). It was similar but not identical to the May 2006 Draft Recovery Strategy.
[24] Posting of the Proposed Recovery Strategy was followed by a public comment period that ended in August 2007. According to the mandatory timelines under SARA, the Final Recovery Strategy for the Northern and Southern Killer Whales (Recovery Strategy) should have been finalized 30 days later, by September 19, 2007. Instead, it was delayed as DFO bureaucrats once again attempted to make edits.
[25] During the fall of 2007, DFO officials heavily edited the critical habitat section of the Proposed Recovery Strategy. DFO removed all reference to two threats to critical habitat: acoustic degradation and reduction in the availability of salmon prey. Additionally, future scientific studies regarding these threats were removed from the proposed “schedule of studies to identify critical habitat” required under section 41(1) (c.1).
[26] Members of the Recovery Team strongly objected to these editorial changes and sought to resolve their concerns with DFO. At some point before March 14, 2008, DFO reinstated most of the excised portions identifying noise and reduced availability of salmon prey as threats to critical habitat. On March 14, 2008, DFO posted the Recovery Strategy to the public registry.
Recovery Strategy Identifies Critical Habitat
[27] As required by subsection 41(1)(c) of SARA, section 3 of the Recovery Strategy identified critical habitat for the Resident Killer Whales, the components of the critical habitat and threats to critical habitat.
[28] The geospatial location of critical habitat of the Resident Killer Whales is identified on maps in Figures 4 and 5, and in the marine coordinates in Appendix B of the Recovery Strategy.
[29] The components of critical habitat clearly include the presence and availability of salmon prey for the Resident Killer Whales.
[30] Threats to critical habitat (in section 3.2) include diminished prey availability, chemical and biological contamination and acoustic degradation.
180 Days Later, DFO Must Protect Critical Habitat
[31] Section 58 of SARA required that, by September 10, 2008, the critical habitat identified in the Recovery Strategy be legally protected from destruction under subsection 58(5). Legal protection of critical habitat can take one of two forms: direct protection under SARA or indirect protection under other Acts of Parliament.
[32] Direct protection under SARA is engaged through the issuance of a protection order under subsection 58(4). A protection order applies the prohibition against destruction of critical habitat in subsection 58(1) to the critical habitat areas and components set out in the protection order. If critical habitat is not already protected, then a competent minister must issue a protection order.
[33] Indirect protection under other federal laws is confirmed through a protection statement under subsection 58(5)(b) of SARA. A protection statement describes how critical habitat is already protected from destruction by provisions in or measures under other Acts of Parliament. A protection statement cites the other federal legislative provisions that already legally protect critical habitat from destruction.
[34] On September 10, 2008, DFO bureaucrats delivered to the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a memorandum explaining their recommendation for protection of critical habitat of the Resident Killer Whales (Protection Statement Memo). This memorandum recommended issuing a protection statement. It attached a table containing a proposed list of tools available to protect critical habitat, as well as a draft protection statement for approval by the Minister’s delegate.
[35] The Applicants posit that the Protection Statement Memo and accompanying attachments described the section 58 legal duty to protect critical habitat as being limited to the protection of the “geophysical attributes” of the critical habitat. The Applicants say that the Protection Statement Memo and attachments consistently make a policy distinction, which is challenged here by the Applicants. The distinction made is between DFO’s duty to legally protect geophysical attributes of critical habitat, on one hand, and DFO’s discretion to “manage and mitigate” the biological, chemical and acoustic components of critical habitat on the other.
[36] On September 10, 2008, the final Protection Statement was posted to the SARA public registry. The Applicants say that the Protection Statement maintains the distinction between the duty to provide legal protection for the geophysical attributes of critical habitat and the discretion to “manage and mitigate” threats to biological and other ecosystem features.
Applications for Judicial Review
[37] On October 8, 2008, a judicial review application was commenced challenging the lawfulness of the Protection Statement. In Application T-1552-08, the Applicants alleged that DFO erred in law and jurisdiction in issuing a Protection Statement that relies on non-binding policy, prospective legislation and ministerial discretion – none of which legally protect critical habitat within the meaning of section 58 of SARA. The Notice of Application was amended on January 23, 2009.
[38] By February 9, 2009, DFO had reversed itself, recommending that its Minister replace the Protection Statement with a protection order under SARA.
[39] On February 13, 2009, DFO sought the cooperation of the Minister of the Environment, as the Minister responsible for Parks Canada, to issue a joint order under subsections 58(4) and (5) of SARA. Alan Latourelle, CEO of Parks Canada made recommendations to the Minister regarding the proposed protection order in a February 13, 2009 memorandum (Latourelle Memo). Paraphrased, this memorandum explains that:
1. DFO is currently facing a legal challenge in Federal Court regarding the Protection Statement. DFO is encouraging Parks Canada to issue a joint order quickly before DFO has to proceed any further with the existing lawsuit;
2. A new protection statement from Parks Canada would be open to challenge on the same grounds as the Protection Statement issued by DFO;
3. DFO’s proposed protection order does not define which activities are prohibited as destructive of critical habitat. Enforcement of DFO’s proposed order might thus prove difficult.
[40] Issuing a Protection Order under subsection 58(4) of SARA usually involves pre-publication in the Canada Gazette Part I, to allow 30 days for public comment. However, on the recommendation of DFO officials, the Ministers agreed to forego public consultation on the Protection Order. Thus, the Applicants say they were denied any opportunity to comment on the Protection Order before it was finalized.
[41] On March 4, 2009, the Protection Order was published in the Canada Gazette Part II. The Protection Order states that the prohibition against destruction of critical habitat in subsection 58(1) of SARA applies to the critical habitat of the Resident Killer Whales described in Schedule I. Schedule I is a list of marine coordinates for the geospatial location of critical habitat.
[42] The Protection Order was published with an accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS). The Applicants take the position that the RIAS, quoted below, continues to reflect DFO’s distinction between its duties towards geophysical areas and its discretion to manage and mitigate the biological features of critical habitat:
[t]he recovery strategy identifies at section 3 the critical habitats as defined geophysical areas where these populations concentrate. In addition DFO recognizes that other ecosystem features such as the availability of prey for foraging and the quality of the environment are important to the survival and recovery of the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales.
[43] On March 6, 2009, the Applicants wrote to DFO advising that they had serious concerns that the Protection Order may not legally protect the biological elements of critical habitat. The Applicants also sought clarification on other matters, including whether DFO had abandoned its position that the laws and policies set out in the Protection Statement “legally protected” the critical habitat of Resident Killer Whales.
[44] On March 10, 2009, the Government of Canada responded, through counsel. As paraphrased by the Applicants, the response stated that:
1. DFO characterizes the Protection Order as an “optional alternative” to the Protection Statement, rather than a required alternative given the unlawfulness of the Protection Statement;
2. DFO refuses to disavow reliance on policy and discretionary tools that do not legally protect critical habitat in protection statements; and
3. DFO refuses to confirm that the Protection Order protects the biological features of critical habitat from destruction.
[45] On April 3, 2009, the Applicants filed the second judicial review application against DFO and the Minister of the Environment. The Protection Order Application challenges DFO’s practice of limiting the application and scope of section 58 of SARA to protect only geospatial areas and/or geophysical elements of critical habitat, and it challenges the application of this practice or policy to the Protection Order.
Consolidation
[46] On March 18, 2009, the Respondents filed a motion to have the Protection Statement Application, in File No. T-1552-08 dismissed on the ground of mootness.
[47] On April 9, 2009, the Applicants filed a motion seeking to have the two applications for judicial review consolidated.
[48] By the Order of Justice O’Reilly, the Respondents’ motion to dismiss the Protection Statement Application on the ground of mootness was denied. The Applicants’ motion to consolidate the two applications into one proceeding was granted. While Justice O’Reilly held that the Protection Statement Application in File No. T-1552-08 was technically moot, he refused to strike the application so as to preserve this Court’s discretion to issue the relief sought in the Protection Statement Application for judicial review.
ISSUES
[49] The issues on the application can be summarized as follows:
1. Whether the Court ought to exercise its discretion to hear the moot Protection Statement Application;
2. Whether the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans erred in issuing a Protection Statement that relies on policy and other non-statutory instruments, prospective laws and ministerial discretion to provide legal protection for critical habitat;
3. Whether there is a justiciable issue for review in the Protection Order Application;
4. Whether the Ministers erred in limiting the application of the Protection Order to the geophysical area to the exclusion of the other components of critical habitat.
[50] The following provisions of the Act are applicable in these proceedings:
Definitions
2.(1) The definitions in this subsection apply in this Act.
…
“COSEWIC”
“COSEWIC” means the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada established by section 14.
…
Contents if recovery feasible
41. (1) If the competent minister determines that the recovery of the listed wildlife species is feasible, the recovery strategy must address the threats to the survival of the species identified by COSEWIC, including any loss of habitat, and must include
(a) a description of the species and its needs that is consistent with information provided by COSEWIC;
(b) an identification of the threats to the survival of the species and threats to its habitat that is consistent with information provided by COSEWIC and a description of the broad strategy to be taken to address those threats;
(c) an identification of the species’ critical habitat, to the extent possible, based on the best available information, including the information provided by COSEWIC, and examples of activities that are likely to result in its destruction;
(c.1) a schedule of studies to identify critical habitat, where available information is inadequate;
(d) a statement of the population and distribution objectives that will assist the recovery and survival of the species, and a general description of the research and management activities needed to meet those objectives;
(e) any other matters that are prescribed by the regulations;
(f) a statement about whether additional information is required about the species; and
(g) a statement of when one or more action plans in relation to the recovery strategy will be completed.
Contents if recovery not feasible
(2) If the competent minister determines that the recovery of the listed wildlife species is not feasible, the recovery strategy must include a description of the species and its needs, an identification of the species’ critical habitat to the extent possible, and the reasons why its recovery is not feasible.
Multi-species or ecosystem approach permissible
(3) The competent minister may adopt a multi-species or an ecosystem approach when preparing the recovery strategy if he or she considers it appropriate to do so.
Regulations
(4) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister after consultation with the Minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, make regulations for the purpose of paragraph (1)(e) prescribing matters to be included in a recovery strategy.
Proposed recovery strategy
42. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the competent minister must include a proposed recovery strategy in the public registry within one year after the wildlife species is listed, in the case of a wildlife species listed as an endangered species, and within two years after the species is listed, in the case of a wildlife species listed as a threatened species or an extirpated species.
First listed wildlife species
(2) With respect to wildlife species that are set out in Schedule 1 on the day section 27 comes into force, the competent minister must include a proposed recovery strategy in the public registry within three years after that day, in the case of a wildlife species listed as an endangered species, and within four years after that day, in the case of a wildlife species listed as a threatened species or an extirpated species.
…
Destruction of critical habitat
58. (1) Subject to this section, no person shall destroy any part of the critical habitat of any listed endangered species or of any listed threatened species — or of any listed extirpated species if a recovery strategy has recommended the reintroduction of the species into the wild in Canada — if
(a) the critical habitat is on federal land, in the exclusive economic zone of Canada or on the continental shelf of Canada;
(b) the listed species is an aquatic species; or
(c) the listed species is a species of migratory birds protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994.
Protected areas
(2) If the critical habitat or a portion of the critical habitat is in a national park of Canada named and described in Schedule 1 to the Canada National Parks Act, a marine protected area under the Oceans Act, a migratory bird sanctuary under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 or a national wildlife area under the Canada Wildlife Act, the competent Minister must, within 90 days after the recovery strategy or action plan that identified the critical habitat is included in the public registry, publish in the Canada Gazette a description of the critical habitat or portion that is in that park, area or sanctuary.
Application
(3) If subsection (2) applies, subsection (1) applies to the critical habitat or the portion of the critical habitat described in the Canada Gazette under subsection (2) 90 days after the description is published in the Canada Gazette.
Application
(4) If all of the critical habitat or any portion of the critical habitat is not in a place referred to in subsection (2), subsection (1) applies in respect of the critical habitat or portion of the critical habitat, as the case may be, specified in an order made by the competent minister.
Obligation to make order or statement
(5) Within 180 days after the recovery strategy or action plan that identified the critical habitat is included in the public registry, the competent minister must, after consultation with every other competent minister, with respect to all of the critical habitat or any portion of the critical habitat that is not in a place referred to in subsection (2),
(a) make the order referred to in subsection (4) if the critical habitat or any portion of the critical habitat is not legally protected by provisions in, or measures under, this or any other Act of Parliament, including agreements under section 11; or
(b) if the competent minister does not make the order, he or she must include in the public registry a statement setting out how the critical habitat or portions of it, as the case may be, are legally protected.
Définitions
2. (1) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la présente loi.
…
« COSEPAC »
« COSEPAC » Le Comité sur la situation des espèces en péril au Canada, constitué en application de l’article 14.
…
Rétablissement réalisable
41. (1) Si le ministre compétent conclut que le rétablissement de l’espèce sauvage inscrite est réalisable, le programme de rétablissement doit traiter des menaces à la survie de l’espèce — notamment de toute perte de son habitat — précisées par le COSEPAC et doit comporter notamment :
a) une description de l’espèce et de ses besoins qui soit compatible avec les renseignements fournis par le COSEPAC;
b) une désignation des menaces à la survie de l’espèce et des menaces à son habitat qui soit compatible avec les renseignements fournis par le COSEPAC, et des grandes lignes du plan à suivre pour y faire face;
c) la désignation de l’habitat essentiel de l’espèce dans la mesure du possible, en se fondant sur la meilleure information accessible, notamment les informations fournies par le COSEPAC, et des exemples d’activités susceptibles d’entraîner sa destruction;
c.1) un calendrier des études visant à désigner l’habitat essentiel lorsque l’information accessible est insuffisante;
d) un énoncé des objectifs en matière de population et de dissémination visant à favoriser la survie et le rétablissement de l’espèce, ainsi qu’une description générale des activités de recherche et de gestion nécessaires à l’atteinte de ces objectifs;
e) tout autre élément prévu par règlement;
f) un énoncé sur l’opportunité de fournir des renseignements supplémentaires concernant l’espèce;
g) un exposé de l’échéancier prévu pour l’élaboration d’un ou de plusieurs plans d’action relatifs au programme de rétablissement.
Rétablissement irréalisable
(2) Si le ministre compétent conclut que le rétablissement de l’espèce sauvage inscrite est irréalisable, le programme de rétablissement doit comporter une description de l’espèce et de ses besoins, dans la mesure du possible, et la désignation de son habitat essentiel, ainsi que les motifs de la conclusion.
Plusieurs espèces ou écosystème
(3) Pour l’élaboration du programme de rétablissement, le ministre compétent peut, s’il l’estime indiqué, traiter de plusieurs espèces simultanément ou de tout un écosystème.
Règlement
(4) Sur recommandation faite par le ministre après consultation du ministre responsable de l’Agence Parcs Canada et du ministre des Pêches et des Océans, le gouverneur en conseil peut prévoir par règlement, pour l’application de l’alinéa (1)e), les éléments additionnels à inclure dans un programme de rétablissement.
Projet de programme de rétablissement
42. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le ministre compétent met le projet de programme de rétablissement dans le registre dans l’année suivant l’inscription de l’espèce sauvage comme espèce en voie de disparition ou dans les deux ans suivant l’inscription de telle espèce comme espèce menacée ou disparue du pays.
Liste des espèces en péril originale
(2) En ce qui concerne les espèces sauvages inscrites à l’annexe 1 à l’entrée en vigueur de l’article 27, le ministre compétent met le projet de programme de rétablissement dans le registre dans les trois ans suivant cette date dans le cas de l’espèce sauvage inscrite comme espèce en voie de disparition ou dans les quatre ans suivant cette date dans le cas de l’espèce sauvage inscrite comme espèce menacée ou disparue du pays.
…
Destruction de l’habitat essentiel
58. (1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions du présent article, il est interdit de détruire un élément de l’habitat essentiel d’une espèce sauvage inscrite comme espèce en voie de disparition ou menacée — ou comme espèce disparue du pays dont un programme de rétablissement a recommandé la réinsertion à l’état sauvage au Canada :
a) si l’habitat essentiel se trouve soit sur le territoire domanial, soit dans la zone économique exclusive ou sur le plateau continental du Canada;
b) si l’espèce inscrite est une espèce aquatique;
c) si l’espèce inscrite est une espèce d’oiseau migrateur protégée par la Loi de 1994 sur la convention concernant les oiseaux migrateurs.
Zone de protection
(2) Si l’habitat essentiel ou une partie de celui-ci se trouve dans un parc national du Canada dénommé et décrit à l’annexe 1 de la Loi sur les parcs nationaux du Canada, une zone de protection marine sous le régime de la Loi sur les océans, un refuge d’oiseaux migrateurs sous le régime de la Loi de 1994 sur la convention concernant les oiseaux migrateurs ou une réserve nationale de la faune sous le régime de la Loi sur les espèces sauvages du Canada, le ministre compétent est tenu, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la mise dans le registre du programme de rétablissement ou du plan d’action ayant défini l’habitat essentiel, de publier dans la Gazette du Canada une description de l’habitat essentiel ou de la partie de celui-ci qui se trouve dans le parc, la zone, le refuge ou la réserve.
Application
(3) Le paragraphe (1) s’applique à l’habitat essentiel ou à la partie de celui-ci visés au paragraphe (2) après les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la publication de sa description dans la Gazette du Canada en application de ce paragraphe.
Application
(4) Le paragraphe (1) s’applique à l’habitat essentiel ou à la partie de celui-ci qui ne se trouve pas dans un lieu visé au paragraphe (2), selon ce que précise un arrêté pris par le ministre compétent.
Obligation : arrêté ou déclaration
(5) Dans les cent quatre-vingts jours suivant la mise dans le registre du programme de rétablissement ou du plan d’action ayant défini l’habitat essentiel, le ministre compétent est tenu, après consultation de tout autre ministre compétent, à l’égard de l’habitat essentiel ou de la partie de celui-ci qui ne se trouve pas dans un lieu visé au paragraphe (2) :
a) de prendre l’arrêté visé au paragraphe (4), si l’habitat essentiel ou la partie de celui-ci ne sont pas protégés légalement par des dispositions de la présente loi ou de toute autre loi fédérale, ou une mesure prise sous leur régime, notamment les accords conclus au titre de l’article 11;
b) s’il ne prend pas l’arrêté, de mettre dans le registre une déclaration énonçant comment l’habitat essentiel ou la partie de celui-ci sont protégés légalement.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[51] The Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 (Dunsmuir) held that a standard of review analysis need not be conducted in every instance. Instead, where the standard of review applicable to the particular question before the court is well-settled by past jurisprudence, the reviewing court may adopt that standard of review. Only where this search proves fruitless must the reviewing court undertake a consideration of the four factors comprising the standard of review analysis.
Applicants’ Arguments on Standard of Review
[52] The Applicants submit that DFO’s decision to rely on non-statutory instruments such as policies and ministerial discretion to provide legal protection in the Protection Statement is reviewable on a standard of correctness. Similarly, the Applicants contend that the Ministers’ decision to limit the Protection Order to protect only geophysical parts of critical habitat requires review on a standard of correctness, since it is an error of interpretation. See, for instance, Dunsmuir, above, at paragraphs 124, 128.
[53] The Applicants offer the following analysis to determine the appropriate standard of review based on the factors enumerated in Dunsmuir, above. First, the Act contains no privative clause, which demonstrates that Parliament did not intend to insulate decisions made under the Act from judicial review.
[54] Second, the purpose of the Act is to prevent at-risk species from becoming extinct and to facilitate their survival, and section 58 of the Act is integral to achieving the Act’s objectives.
[55] Third, the questions at issue involve statutory interpretation. As such, they are clearly more within the expertise of the Court than that of government bureaucrats. The Act is not a home statute to the Respondents. Moreover, DFO did not consult its Recovery Team experts about either the Protection Statement or the Protection Order. As such, the Applicants submit that it would be absurd to award deference to either decision on the basis of expertise.
[56] Finally, this question involves issues of law and jurisdiction. Accordingly, a standard of correctness ought to apply. In recent judicial review applications under the Act, the nature of the question has been a heavily-weighed factor in determining the appropriate standard of review. See, for example, Alberta Wilderness Association v. Canada (Minister of the Environment), 2009 FC 710, [2009] F.C.J. No., 876 (Alberta Wilderness Association) at paragraphs 40-46; and Environmental Defence Canada v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), 2009 FC 878, [2009] F.C.J. No. 1052 (Environmental Defence) at paragraphs 31 and 44. Based on the above factors, the Applicants contend that correctness is the appropriate standard of review.
Respondents’ Arguments on the Standard of Review
[57] The Respondents submit that there is no justiciable issue for the Court to review in this case and, as such, the issue of standard of review does not arise. However, following the oral hearing of this matter in Vancouver on June 14, 2010, the Court directed the Respondents to address the merits of the Applicants’ Protection Statement Application. As part of their subsequent supplemental submissions the Respondents argue that the standard of review should be reasonableness.
Appropriate Standard of Review
[58] I believe that the Applicants are correct with regard to the appropriate standards of review for issues 2 and 4.
[59] Considering whether the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans erred in issuing a Protection Statement that relies on policy and other non-statutory instruments is, essentially, an issue of statutory interpretation. More simply put, if the Court chooses to exercise its jurisdiction to consider the first moot application, the Court must consider whether such non-statutory instruments fulfil the requirements to provide legal protection for critical habitat, pursuant to subsection 58(5) of the Act. This is an issue of statutory interpretation that should be reviewed on a standard of correctness. See Dunsmuir, above.
[60] I believe that statutory interpretation is also the crux of issue 4. Consequently, correctness is also the appropriate standard for review in determining whether the Ministers adhered to statutory requirements in issuing the Protection Order made pursuant to subsection 58(5) of the Act.
ARGUMENTS
The Applicants
The Court should exercise its discretion to hear first moot application
[61] The Applicants submit that the Court should hear and resolve all of the legal issues before it, since judicial clarification of the Respondents’ duty to provide legal protection for critical habitat will have significant effects on the survival of all aquatic species at risk.
[62] The first application before the Court raises an issue of statutory interpretation: whether policies, prospective laws, discretionary laws and provincial laws can be said to provide legal protection for critical habitat pursuant to section 58 of the Act. This issue was not resolved by the subsequent Protection Order issued by the Respondents. The Applicants contend that this issue must be decided, and declaratory relief be given to guard against future violations of section 58 of SARA.
[63] DFO’s incorrect belief that section 58 protects only geospatial areas of critical habitat arises in both applications and continues to limit the scope of the Protection Order. Similar facts and legal issues are raised in both applications. Accordingly, judicial resources will be well spent in resolving the two applications simultaneously.
Hearing a moot application
[64] Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, [1989] S.C.J. No. 14 (Borowski) at page 353 sets out a two-step test to determine if the Court should exercise its discretion to hear a moot case:
1) First,