Judicial review of order made by Minister of Transport prohibiting construction of aerodrome on land acquired by applicant in Saint-Roch-de-l’Achigan, Quebec — Applicant non-profit corporation with objective to build, operate aerodrome in municipality of Saint-Roch-de-l’Achigan — In 2019, applicant acquired land required to build aerodrome, began consultation process set out in Canadian Aviation Regulations, SOR/96-433, ss. 307.01 to 307.10 — In referendum, majority of residents voted against aerodrome project — Minister of Transport issued order under Aeronautics Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-2, s. 4.32, prohibiting applicant from building aerodrome — Minister justified decision in part because of lack of clarity regarding impact of noise footprint of proposed aerodrome — Applicant commissioned acoustic study demonstrating proposed aerodrome would not result in noise level above Department of Transport standards — Applicant’s file reviewed again by Department of Transport officials — Minister chose to prohibit project — Subsequent memorandum noted, inter alia, strong opposition of residents, absence of economic impact study — Minister approved memorandum, signed order — Applicant arguing Minister overstepped authority under Act, s. 4.32, by taking into account considerations extraneous to Act — Applicant also arguing Minister could not consider social licence for aerodrome project in exercising power conferred by s. 4.32 — Main issue whether Minister overstepped authority by issuing order prohibiting construction of aerodrome — Minister’s decision reasonable — Decision maker charged with assessing public interest may consider activities not directly within decision maker’s regulatory purview — Simply not realistic to examine public interest while wearing blinders — Applicant’s arguments all based on false premise of no connection between aviation, concerns of residents regarding environment or land use — Public interest broader than public safety — S. 4.32 making separate mention of aviation safety, public interest — Applicant failed to demonstrate that nature of statutory scheme establishes heavy constraints on exercise of power conferred by s. 4.32 — On contrary, nothing warranting narrowing range of public interest factors Minister may consider — Decision maker charged with assessing public interest may reasonably choose to consider social licence — Particularly true when, as here, project not subject to structured environmental assessment or land use planning process — S. 4.32 not limiting factors Minister may consider in determining whether project contrary to public interest — Act not granting unconditional right to build aerodrome to limit scope of power conferred on Minister by s. 4.32— Thus, applicant cannot rely on supposedly permissive nature of Act or applicant’s right to build aerodrome to limit scope of Minister’s authority under s. 4.32 — Regulations, ss. 307.1 to 307.10, not providing exhaustive list of factors Minister may consider, not limiting categories of persons Minister may listen to — Consultation under Regulations not exhausting public interest, not guarantee of social licence — In exercising power in s. 4.32, Minister could therefore consider factors applicant describes as related to social licence — Moreover, how Minister weighed factors reasonable here — Applicant not pointing to any constitutional law argument capable of buttressing such limit on Minister’s powers — Application dismissed.
11316753 Canada Association v. Canada (Transport) (T-942-20, 2021 FC 819, Grammond J., reasons for judgment dated August 4, 2021, 39 pp.)