Date: 20041119
Dockets: T-1340-03
T-1624-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1609
BETWEEN:
THE DEAN ISLAND COTTAGE ASSOCIATION
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of orders by the Canadian Coast Guard (hereinafter the "CCG") that the bridge between Dean Island and the mainland (Part Lots 2 & 3, Concession 6 & 7, Township of South Crosby, County of Leeds, Province of Ontario) (hereinafter "the bridge") being "an unauthorized work for the purposes of the Navigable Waters Protection Act", R.S.C. 1985, c. N-22 (hereinafter the "Act"), be altered according to specific requirements and that the applicant comply with section 6 of the Act.
Facts
[2] The bridge exists at Dean Island, Part Lots 2 & 3, Concession 6 & 7, Township of South Crosby, County of Leeds, Province of Ontario.
[3] In 1995, Roney Engineering Limited was commissioned by the applicant to carry out a structural analysis of the bridge. They recommended that remedial work be carried out without delay. On June 17, 1996, the applicant's solicitor at the time submitted an application requesting approval for repairs to the bridge on the basis that the bridge existed prior to 1882 and by reason of section 8 of the Act was not subject to sections 5 to 7 of the Act.
[4] On February 12, 1997, the CCG wrote to the applicant and stated that it had determined that the two conditions in section 8 of the Act were not met. With respect to the first condition, the letter explained that CCG was unable "to conclude with absolute certainty", from the information provided, that the bridge was built before the 1882 date. With respect to the second condition, the letter states:
. . . With respect to the second condition, it is our opinion that the bridge does in fact present a greater interference to navigation now than when it was originally built. This is not owing to any physical change to the structure (although we are advised that the original bridge may have been a two span structure) but rather to the passage of time, change in navigation patterns and site conditions in the area. In conclusion, then, it is our opinion that sec.(8) is not applicable in this instance.
[5] Throughout 1997 and 1998, the CCG responded to various inquiries from Members of Parliament, acting on the applicant's behalf. The MPs were informed of the competing interests of property owners, the public right to navigation and explained how the Act applied to the applicant. From 1998 into 1999, letters continued to be exchanged between the applicant, the CCG, and property owners regarding the bridge.
[6] In the fall of 2001 repairs were carried out to the bridge by the addition of steel beams and metal decking to the existing bridge frame. The CCG issued a stop work order on October 19, 2001. On November 5, 2001, the CCG sent a letter to the applicant reminding the latter of the stop work order, and reiterating the clearance requirements under the Act.
[7] On December 21, 2001 and on January 10, 2002, the CCG sent letters to the applicant requesting that the latter submits any additional evidence it wished to have considered to determine the age of the bridge. From December 2001 until the filing of the judicial review applications, the CCG had not received additional evidence concerning the age of the bridge, and the applicant had not submitted a proposal under subsection 5(1) of the Act.
[8] On June 12, 2003, the CCG directed the applicant, by letter, to alter the bridge to provide for minimum horizontal and vertical clearances. The first paragraph of that letter reads as follows:
We bring to your attention that the above described bridge is an unauthorized work for the purposes of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It has been built and placed without the authorization of the Minister and it interferes substantially with the public right to navigation.
The applicant was specifically directed to advise the CCG on or before July 7, 2003 as to how and when it proposed to effect the alteration of the bridge. The alterations were to be completed by July 28, 2003. The applicant advised the CCG on July 7, 2003 that it would not, at that time, be submitting plans to alter the bridge, but that it would have the issue resolved in Federal Court.
[9] In a subsequent letter dated August 7, 2003, which includes a first paragraph identical to the first paragraph in the previous letter of June 12, 2003, the CCG ordered the applicant to alter the bridge to provide for minimum horizontal and vertical clearances. The alterations were to be completed by September 8, 2003, otherwise further steps pursuant to section 6 of the Act would be taken.
[10] A Notice of Application for Judicial Review (T-1340-03) was filed on July 30, 2003 wherein the applicant sought the following relief:
1. An order of prohibition prohibiting the Minister from issuing any orders pursuant to s. 5-7 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act with respect to the bridge.
2. A declaration that the stop work order of October 19th, 2001, and the direction of the Navigable Waters Protection section of the Canadian Coast Guard dated June 12th, 2003, are invalid or unlawful;
3. A declaration that sections 5 to 7 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act do not apply to the bridge between the mainland and Dean's Island located at the Township of South Crosby, County of Leeds and Grenville, Province of Ontario.
[11] A further application (T-1624-03) was filed on September 5, 2003, seeking the following relief:
1. An order of prohibition prohibiting the Minister from issuing any orders pursuant to s. 5-7 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act with respect to the bridge;
2. A declaration that the order set out in the letter of August 7th, 2003 is invalid or unlawful;
3. A declaration that s. 5-7 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act do not apply to the bridge between the mainland and Dean's Island located at the Township of South Crosby, County of Leeds and Grenville, Province of Ontario.
[12] The two applications were joined by Order of this Court dated December 5, 2003.
Legislative Provisions
3. In this Part,
"lawful work" means any work not contrary to the law in force at the place of construction of the work at the time of its construction;
"owner" includes a person authorizing or otherwise responsible for the erection or maintenance of any work and an actual or reputed owner or person in possession or claiming ownership thereof for the time being;
"work" includes
(a) any bridge, boom, dam, wharf, dock, pier, tunnel or pipe and the approaches or other works necessary or appurtenant thereto,
(b) any dumping of fill or excavation of materials from the bed of a navigable water,
(c) any telegraph or power cable or wire, or
(d) any structure, device or thing, whether similar in character to anything referred to in this definition or not, that may interfere with navigation.
[. . .]
3. Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent à la présente partie.
« ouvrage légalement construit » Ouvrage non contraire aux règles de droit en vigueur à l'endroit en cause lors de la construction.
« ouvrages » Sont compris parmi les ouvrages :
a) les ponts, estacades, barrages, quais, docks, jetées, tunnels ou conduites ainsi que les abords ou autres ouvrages nécessaires ou accessoires;
b) les déversements de remblais ou excavations de matériaux tirés du lit d'eaux navigables;
c) les câbles ou fils de télégraphe ou de transport d'énergie;
d) les constructions, appareils ou objets similaires ou non à ceux mentionnés à la présente définition et susceptibles de nuire à la navigation.
« propriétaire » Le propriétaire véritable ou apparent d'un ouvrage. Est également visé par la présente définition quiconque est en possession d'un ouvrage, en revendique la propriété, en autorise la construction ou l'entretien ou en est chargé à un autre titre.
[. . .]
5. (1) No work shall be built or placed in, on, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless
(a) the work and the site and plans thereof have been approved by the Minister, on such terms and conditions as the Minister deems fit, prior to commencement of construction;
(b) the construction of the work is commenced within six months and completed within three years after the approval referred to in paragraph (a) or within such further period as the Minister may fix; and
(c) the work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with the plans, the regulations and the terms and conditions set out in the approval referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) Except in the case of a bridge, boom, dam or causeway, this section does not apply to any work that, in the opinion of the Minister, does not interfere substantially with navigation.
6. (1) Where any work to which this Part applies is built or placed without having been approved by the Minister, is built or placed on a site not approved by the Minister, is not built or placed in accordance with plans so approved or, having been so built or placed, is not maintained in accordance with those plans and the regulations, the Minister may
(a) order the owner of the work to remove or alter the work;
(b) where the owner of the work fails forthwith to comply with an order made pursuant to paragraph (a), remove and destroy the work and sell, give away or otherwise dispose of the materials contained in the work; and
(c) order any person to refrain from proceeding with the construction of the work where, in the opinion of the Minister, the work interferes or would interfere with navigation or is being constructed contrary to this Act.
5. (1) Il est interdit de construire ou de placer un ouvrage dans des eaux navigables ou sur, sous, au-dessus ou à travers de telles eaux à moins que :
a) préalablement au début des travaux, l'ouvrage, ainsi que son emplacement et ses plans, n'aient été approuvés par le ministre selon les modalités qu'il juge à propos;
b) la construction de l'ouvrage ne soit commencée dans les six mois et terminée dans les trois ans qui suivent l'approbation visée à l'alinéa a) ou dans le délai supplémentaire que peut fixer le ministre;
c) la construction, l'emplacement ou l'entretien de l'ouvrage ne soit conforme aux plans, aux règlements et aux modalités que renferme l'approbation visée à l'alinéa a).
(2) Sauf dans le cas d'un pont, d'une estacade, d'un barrage ou d'une chaussée, le présent article ne s'applique pas à un ouvrage qui, de l'avis du ministre, ne gêne pas sérieusement la navigation.
6. (1) Dans les cas où un ouvrage visé par la présente partie est construit ou placé sans avoir été approuvé par le ministre ou est construit ou placé sur un emplacement non approuvé par le ministre ou n'est pas construit ou placé conformément à des plans ainsi approuvés ou, après avoir été ainsi construit ou placé, n'est pas entretenu conformément à ces plans et aux règlements, le ministre peut :
a) ordonner au propriétaire de l'ouvrage de l'enlever ou de le modifier;
b) lorsque le propriétaire de l'ouvrage n'obtempère pas à un ordre donné sous le régime de l'alinéa a), enlever et détruire l'ouvrage et aliéner - notamment par vente ou don - les matériaux qui le composent;
c) enjoindre à quiconque d'arrêter la construction de l'ouvrage lorsqu'il est d'avis qu'il gène ou gênerait la navigation ou que sa construction est en contravention avec la présente loi.
(2) Any owner or person who fails to comply with an order given to that owner or person pursuant to paragraph (1)(a) or (c) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars.
(3) Where the Minister removes, destroys or disposes of a work pursuant to paragraph (1)(b), the costs of and incidental to the operation of removal, destruction or disposal, after deducting therefrom any sum that may be realized by sale or otherwise, are recoverable with costs in the name of Her Majesty from the owner.
(4) The Minister may, subject to deposit and advertisement as in the case of a proposed work, approve a work and the plans and site of the work after the commencement of its construction and the approval has the same effect as if given prior to commencement of the construction of the work.
[. . .]
(2) Quiconque n'obtempère pas à un ordre donné sous le régime de l'alinéa (1)a) ou c) commet une infraction et encourt, sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire, une amende maximale de cinq mille dollars.
(3) Les frais entraînés par l'enlèvement, la destruction ou l'aliénation d'un ouvrage par le ministre en application de l'alinéa (1)b) sont, après déduction du montant qui peut être réalisé notamment par vente, recouvrables du propriétaire, ainsi que les frais de recouvrement, au nom de Sa Majesté.
(4) Le ministre peut, sous réserve de dépôt et d'annonce comme dans le cas d'un ouvrage projeté, approuver un ouvrage, ainsi que ses plans et son emplacement, après le début de sa construction; l'approbation a alors le même effet que si elle avait été donnée avant le début des travaux.
[. . .]
8. Sections 5 to 7 do not affect any bridge constructed before May 17, 1882 that, after that date, requires to be rebuilt or repaired, if the bridge, when so rebuilt or repaired, does not interfere to a greater extent with navigation than on or before that date.
[. . .]
10. (1) Any lawful work may be rebuilt or repaired if, in the opinion of the Minister, interference with navigation is not increased by the rebuilding or repairing.
(2) Any lawful work may be altered if
(a) plans of the proposed alteration are deposited with and approved by the Minister; and
(b) in the opinion of the Minister, interference with navigation is not increased by the alteration.
(3) For the purposes of sections 5, 6 and 12, a reference to the plans of a work shall be construed as including the plans of the alteration thereof referred to in subsection (2).
(4) Where, in the opinion of the Minister, an existing lawful work has become a danger to or an interference with navigation by reason of the passage of time and changing conditions in navigation of the navigable waters concerned, any rebuilding, repair or alteration of the work shall be treated in the same manner as a new work.
8. Les articles 5 à 7 ne s'appliquent pas aux ponts dont la construction est antérieure au 17 mai 1882 et qui doivent être reconstruits ou réparés pourvu que, les travaux achevés, les ponts ne gênent pas plus la navigation qu'auparavant.
[. . .]
10. Un ouvrage légalement construit peut être reconstruit ou réparé si, de l'avis du ministre, la reconstruction ou réparation ne gêne pas la navigation davantage.
(2) Un ouvrage légalement construit peut être modifié si les conditions suivantes sont respectées :
a) les plans de la modification projetée sont déposés au bureau du ministre et approuvés par ce dernier;
b) de l'avis du ministre, la modification ne gêne pas la navigation davantage.
(3) Pour l'application des articles 5, 6 et 12, les plans de l'ouvrage s'entendent également des plans de la modification.
(4) La reconstruction, réparation ou modification d'un ouvrage existant et légalement construit qui, de l'avis du ministre, est devenu un danger ou un obstacle pour la navigation en raison du temps écoulé et de l'évolution des conditions de la navigation dans les eaux navigables en cause est considérée comme un nouvel ouvrage.
Analysis
[13] It is clear that based on the evidence before it at the relevant time, the CCG finally determined that the bridge was built after May 17, 1882 and was therefore subject to sections 5 and 6 of the Act. The information that the CCG had before it in evaluating whether the bridge was built before or after May 17, 1882, was the applicant's letter and appendices from June 17, 1996. No further information was submitted to the CCG from that time until the filing of these applications.
[14] In its application of June 1996, the applicant submitted copies of the abstract index from the land registry regarding certain portions of the land where the bridge is currently located. It appears from the registry that in 1880, a right of way existed from the main land to Dean Island. The applicant also indicated in its application that it is inconceivable that the owner of land in 1860 would have tolerated the inconvenience of not having a bridge to the island to transport his livestock, equipment and produce. This evidence contradicts the statement in the 1995 Roney Engineering report which states that "this analysis has been carried out . . . on the understanding that the bridge was erected within the last twenty-five years."
[15] Based on the above evidence, the CCG, in the above letter dated February 12, 1997, stated that it was "unable to conclude with absolute certainty" and, in a letter dated August 22, 2002, that there is "no conclusive evidence" that the bridge was built before May 17, 1882, thus applying a standard of proof much higher than that which is required, namely the civil standard of balance of probabilities. In applying the incorrect burden of proof, the respondent committed a reviewable error of law (see, for example, Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Ontario (Civilian Commission on Police Services) (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 649).
[16] In the circumstances, the determination of whether or not the opinion contained in Mr. Osborne's affidavit submitted by the applicant, which refers to facts which were not before the CCG, is admissible evidence is not necessary.
[17] With respect to the respondent's submission based on subsection 10(4) of the Act, I find it is without merit, as the CCG, in the orders in question, specifically states that the bridge is "an unauthorized work for the purposes of the Navigable Waters Protection Act", as it was "built and placed without the authorization of the Minister", which is consistent with a letter dated February 27, 2002, wherein the CCG wrote:
At the present time the bridge is considered to be an unlawful structure and it is the intention of the Canadian Coast Guard to pursue legal action to rectify this situation.
(Emphasis is mine.)
Therefore, the CCG did not consider the bridge to be a "lawful work" to which the application of section 10, including subsection (4), of the Act is restricted. In the circumstances, absent any specific reference to a Minister's opinion made pursuant to subsection 10(4) of the Act in the impugned orders, I consider that the respondent has not established the existence of such an opinion.
[18] The fact that the wording of the CCG's letter of February 12, 1997 mirrors that of subsection 10(4) of the Act is not evidence of a Minister's opinion based on that provision. A simple reading of the entire letter indicates clearly that the CCG erroneously used the wording of subsection 10(4) in support of its conclusion, at the time, that the second condition in section 8 of the Act was not met by the applicant. However, the subsequent impugned orders contained in the letters dated June 12, 2003 and August 7, 2003 do not appear to be based on the failure by the applicant to satisfy this second condition, even though the letters allege that the bridge "interferes substantially with the public right to navigation." Read in the context of the entire evidence, these two letters appear to assume that the bridge was not constructed before May 17, 1882, and, therefore, I consider that the second condition in section 8 of the Act is irrelevant as it applies only to bridges constructed before May 17, 1882. In any event, in order for the second condition to apply, assuming the bridge was constructed before May 17, 1882, the CCG needed to take into account the full repairs proposed by or on behalf of the applicant in assessing the extent of interference of the "so repaired" bridge with navigation, which was not done.
[19] For all the above reasons, the application for judicial review is granted in part. The orders of the CCG dated June 12, 2003 and August 7, 2003, and the underlying "stop work order" dated October 19, 2001, are set aside and the matter is referred back to the Canadian Coast Guard for reconsideration by a different officer, acting on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in accordance with these Reasons for Order. However, to the extent only that it affects the "stop work order" of October 19, 2001, this Order will not take effect before the expiration of the delay to appeal in this matter. Costs in favour of the applicant.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 19, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKETS: T-1340-03 and T-1624-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: THE DEAN ISLAND COTTAGE ASSOCIATION v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF HEARING: October 13, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: November 19, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Duncan R. Beveridge, Q.C. FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Darlene M. Lamey FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Beveridge, MacPherson & Duncan FOR THE APPLICANT
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Date: 20041119
Docket: T-1340-03
Ottawa, Ontario, this 19th day of November 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
BETWEEN:
THE DEAN ISLAND COTTAGE ASSOCIATION
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review is granted in part. The decisions of the Canadian Coast Guard dated June 12, 2003 and August 7, 2003, and the underlying "stop work order" dated October 19, 2001, are set aside and the matter is referred back to the Canadian Coast Guard for reconsideration by a different officer, acting on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in accordance with the Reasons filed in support of this Order. However, to the extent only that it affects the "stop work order" of October 19, 2001, this Order will not take effect before the expiration of the delay to appeal in this matter. Costs in favour of the applicant.
JUDGE