Ghali v. Canada ( Minister of Transport )
T-1153-96
Noël J.
24/10/96
20 pp.
Motion for mandamus ordering Minister of Transport to proceed under Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), ss. 5, 11, 14 et seq., with environmental assessment of Aéroports de Montréal (ADM) project of "liberalizing" allocation of scheduled international flights-Applicant members of not-for-profit corporation "Citizens for a quality of life" owners or occupants of properties situated in municipalities of Pointe-Claire and Ville Saint-Laurent within air corridor used by planes taking off from and landing at Dorval airport-Intervenor ADM agency responsible for managing Montréal's international airports at Dorval and Mirabel-Through ground lease signed July 31, 1992, Her Majesty in right of Canada leased integrated system of Montréal international airport (Dorval and Mirabel) to intervenor for 60 years-On February 20, 1996, ADM publicly announced proposal to "liberalize" allocation of scheduled international flights as of April 1997 with view to letting airline companies elect whether to direct scheduled international flights to Dorval or Mirabel-On May 2, 1996, applicants issued formal notice to Minister of Transport calling on him to initiate environmental assessment process under CEAA, but Minister refused to grant request-Only issue whether Minister required to conduct environmental assessment under CEAA, s. 5(1)(a),(b) or (c)-For Minister to be proponent of ADM project within meaning of Act, must, through silence on ADM project, have in fact proposed it-Meaning of "promoter" employed by Parliament in CEAA limited-Proponent of project person proposing it-Minister neither directly nor indirectly proposed project or any part thereof-Rather, ADM decided to liberalize flights and promote its project-Act, s. 5(1)(a), therefore inapplicable-In regard to s. 5(1)(b), applicants conceded financial assistance could not have been granted for purpose of helping ADM carry out its project since in 1992 project had yet to be conceived and no one had it in mind-For financial assistance to trigger application of s. 5(1)(b), must have been advanced or granted "for purpose of" project sought to be subjected to environmental assessment-Common ground herein financial assistance could not have been granted "for purpose of" project-Application of s. 5(1)(c) also ruled out as neither party involved had ADM project in mind when lease signed and as at present no building capable of reconveyance-Act, s. 5, therefore inapplicable-Motion dismissed-Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37, ss. 5, 11, 14.