Bow Valley Naturalists Society v. Canada ( Minister of Canadian Heritage )
T-1209-98
Rouleau J.
21/9/99
15 pp.
Judicial review of Acting Superintendent's decision adverse environmental effects of development of proposed meeting facility by Canadian Pacific (CP) Hotels at Chateau Lake Louise in Banff National Park not likely significant-Banff National Park designated as World Heritage Site-Lake Louise Management Plan, developed in 1979, setting out low-growth scenario-Plan concluding Chateau Lake Louise would be allowed to renovate in order to operate year-round, but no additional overnight visitor capacity would be contemplated-When Plan updated in 1994, confirmed no additional commercial growth outside that planned in 1979 permitted-1994 study indicating level of development in park severely stressing land and aquatic ecosystems, habitat for large species unacceptably reduced-Banff National Park Management Plan explaining Parks Canada's policy to concentrate development of visitor services in either town of Banff or Lake Louise area under strict low-growth strategy-In 1996 CP Hotels proposing development of new meeting facility at Chateau Lake Louise-148,547 square foot facility planned as seven-story building with six meeting rooms, 700-person meeting hall, 252-seat dining room, 81 new guest rooms-Proposed as additional wing to hotel to be constructed partly on site of existing surface parking lot, abandoned boiler building-Plan incorporated many mitigation measures-As part of proposal, CP Hotels conducted environmental screening, submitted screening documents-In 1998 impugned decision made-Determination of appropriate standard of review-Overriding consideration legislature's intention: reviewing court to accord decision under review deference, or full right of appeal or something inbetween-Factors to be assessed: (1) legislative provisions governing review process, including whether privative clause; (2) degree of expertise of tribunal compared to court; (3) purpose of legislation, nature of decision-maker i.e. whether decision-maker balancing public policy considerations or rights of individuals; (4) nature of decision under review, including whether question of law or fact-Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, ss. 14 through 17 setting out process for conducting environmental assessment-No basis warranting Court's interference with decision-(1) Decisions with respect to appropriate level of human activity in context of Banff National Park, management and policy goals established for park, protection of its ecological integrity highly specialized field in which Parks Canada having significant knowledge, expertise-Recognition of Parks Canada's expertise, participation in extensive studies, planning exercises related to environmental concerns, crucial aspect of CEAA-Discretion to determine scope of project to be assessed, scope of assessment, ensuring assessment will adequately address specific characteristics of each project-(2) Objective of legislation to balance development against unique ecological circumstances of area-Court must be sensitive to limited judicial review power when dealing with this type of legislative objective-Where purposes of statute, decision-maker conceived as delicate balancing act between different constituencies, then appropriateness of court supervision diminishing-(3) Environmental assessment methodology adopted by Parks Canada in respect of meeting facility project contemplating ongoing monitoring of various aspects of project (mitigation measures)-Parks Canada granting approval of meeting facility project because within range of predicted residual effects after mitigation efforts proposed for entire leasehold-Now in position to assess each component of Plan, if and when proceeding, with benefit of specific environmental assessments in respect of each component-Environmental assessment in respect of meeting facility meeting requirement of CEAA, properly incorporating management plans of Banff National Park, community plan of Lake Louise-Application dismissed-Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37, ss. 14, 15, 16, 17.