AIR LAW |
Canada (Attorney General) v. Woods
T-1173-01
2002 FCT 928, Dawson J.
3/9/02
17 pp.
Judicial review of Civil Aviation Tribunal Appeal Panel (Appeal Panel) upholding Civil Aviation Tribunal's (Tribunal) decision not having jurisdiction herein--Minister suspended pilot's licence of respondent pursuant to Aeronautics Act, s. 6.9 for alleged offences (8) under Canadian Aviation Regulations, Act--Tribunal deciding not having jurisdiction to hear two of offences as based on allegations respondent acted contrary to Act, s. 7.3(1)(c)--Issue whether Tribunal had jurisdiction-- Application allowed--Standard of review that of correctness: Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982--Prima facie, combined effect of Act, ss. 6.8, 6.9(1), 7.3(1) that Minister may suspend document for contravention of matter proscribed in Act, s. 7.3(1)--Tribunal would therefore have jurisdiction to review such decision--Question then becoming whether anything in remainder of statute to take jurisdiction away: Canada (Attorney General) v. La Ronge Aviation Services Ltd. (1988), 93 N.R. 234 (F.C.A.)--Appeal Panel, Tribunal incorrectly found apparent jurisdiction taken away by Act, s. 7.3(2)-- Combined effect of Act, ss. 7.3(2), (3), 7.6(2) that every contravention of Part 1 provision constituting offence-- Contravention of any provision other than designated provision punishable on summary conviction, except where Act, s. 7.3(1) contravened and decision made to proceed by indictment--Therefore, mere fact that contravention of provision may lead to judicial proceedings, either by indictment or by summary conviction, not sufficient to take away from wording of Act, ss. 6.8, 6.9, and plain meaning of those provisions that contravention of any Part 1 provision may lead Minister to decide to suspend document-- Suspension in turn may lead to review of that decision before Civil Aviation Tribunal--To conclude otherwise would render power of suspension all but nugatory, existing only in respect of contravention of designated provision--Act, s. 7.6(2) support for view that where Parliament intends to confine Minister to one mode of proceeding, Parliament uses express wording--Absence of such limitation elsewhere in Part 1 allowing inference that not Parliament's intent to restrict options open to Minister--On plain, ordinary meaning of words in Act, s. 6.9(1), scheme of Part 1, and broad responsibility, authority which Parliament conferred on Minister in Act, s. 4, Minister may suspend aviation document for conduct contravening Act, s. 7.3(1)--Follows that Tribunal may review that decision--Existence of requirement of mens rea, while present in criminal offences, not by itself making conduct criminal in sense that only reviewable in court proceedings--As to argument Act, s. 7.3(1) conduct should only be tried in criminal court where specific procedural protections exist, procedural protections before Tribunal commensurate with fact proceedings administrative in nature, to cancel, suspend or not renew aviation document, not with convictions punishable by fines, imprisonment--No basis to argument Act, s. 7.5(1), not Act, s. 6.9, should be used to prohibit further use of pilot's licence--Act, s. 8.5 not inconsistent with interpretation that Act, s. 7.3(1) listing provisions contravention of which may result in suspension under Act, ss. 6.8, 6.9(1)--Aeronautics Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-2, ss. 4 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 33, s. 1; S.C. 1992, c. 4, s. 2), 6.8 (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 33, s. 1), 6.9 (as enacted idem; S.C. 1992, c. 1, s. 5), 7.3(1) (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 33, s. 1), (2) (as enacted idem), (3) (as enacted idem), 7.5(1) (as enacted idem), 7.6(2) (as enacted idem), 8.5 (as enacted idem)--Canadian Aviation Regulations, SOR/96-433.