Environment
Judicial review of decisions by Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) pursuant to Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, S.C. 1999, c. 33 (Act), s. 18 refusing to open investigations into allegations made by applicants relating to importation, sale in Canada of certain diesel vehicles — Allegations involving certain Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche vehicle models equipped with prohibited defeat devices intended to produce fraudulent results when vehicles undergoing emission tests — Environmental groups dissatisfied with time ECCC taking in conducting its investigation, lack of information concerning its progress — Applicants consequently initiating private complaints under Act — Minister responding, inter alia, that offences alleged in applications covered by ECCC investigation— Accepting to investigate one allegation — Applicants submitting, inter alia, Minister must open investigation under Act, s. 18 upon receiving s. 17 application requesting that investigation — Pointing, inter alia, to use of word “shall” in s. 18; to mandatory nature of reporting under Act, s. 19; to legal opinion of ECCC staff confirming Minister`s duty to conduct investigation — Whether Minister reasonably interpreting duty to investigate as discretionary; whether decision to refuse to investigate reasonable — Minister’s decision not to open new investigation on matters currently under investigation falling into range of possible, justifiable outcomes; thus, could not be upset — No evidence Minister relying on legal opinion to make decision — Interpretation in conflict with legal advice received not automatically unreasonable — Statutory interpretation cannot be founded on the wording of legislation alone, i.e. word “shall” in present case — Presumption existing that legislature not intending to produce absurd consequences when statutory language interpreted — Respondent’s interpretation placing emphasis on phrase “shall investigate all matters that the Minister considers necessary” in s. 18 specifically giving Minister discretion to determine if matter requiring investigation actually existing — Under that interpretation, Minister used discretion herein to determine there were no matters requiring investigation since ECCC already investigating allegations in question — While Minister’s interpretation of s. 18 not only possible interpretation, interpretation reasonable — Partial acceptance of applications illustrating that Minister considered the applications, each alleged violations — Duplicative, parallel investigations running contrary to purpose of s. 17 — Also, no merit to applicants’ arguments relying on sufficiency of certified tribunal record or currency of investigation since not included as grounds underlying present judicial review — Application dismissed.
Gray v. Canada (Attorney General) (T-1252-17, 2019 FC 1553, Zinn J., reasons for judgment dated December 4, 2019, 17 p.)