Digests

Transportation

Judicial review of Toronto Port Authority (TPA) decisions published in bulletins regarding slot allocation process at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, request for proposals for additional carriers—Applicant wanting slot allocation process commenced again in proper fashion, including consultations with applicant—Whether TPA “federal board, commission or other tribunal” subject to judicial review—Letters Patent issued to TPA pursuant to Canada Marine Act, S.C. 1998, c. 10 distinguishing powers exercised as Crown, non-Crown agent—Operation, maintenance of airport addressed in Letters Patent, s. 7.2(j) non-Crown agent activity—Allocating slots fundamental part of operation, thus clear TPA not acting as Crown agent in that respect—Distinction between exercise of general powers of management, powers expressly mandated by statutes—Where statutes expressly mandating inquiries, decisions be made, such powers reviewable by Court—General powers of management not reviewable—In this case, TPA expressly empowered by Letters Patent to operate, manage airport as ordinary commercial activity—Thus, Court lacking jurisdiction—Obiter: No simple formula whereby person having commercial interest lacking standing simply on that basis—Context of situation, basis for which review sought must be considered—Applicant having standing since applications resting on procedural fairness—Bulletins at issue simply announcements—Not mandated by any legislation, nor specifically directed to applicant, thus not reviewable—TPA not obligated to consult interested parties when changing slot allocations—No sufficient evidence found to support legitimate expectations of applicant to consult with TPA—Applications dismissed.

Air Canada v. Toronto Port Authority (T-488-10, T-692-10, 2010 FC 774, Hughes J., judgment dated July 21, 2010, 84 pp.)