West Vancouver v. British Columbia

West Vancouver v. British Columbia Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2005-08-26 Neutral citation 2005 FCA 281 File numbers A-236-05 Decision Content Date: 20050826 Docket: A-236-05 Citation: 2005 FCA 281 Present: PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVER Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents "Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties." Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on August 26, 2005. REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PELLETIER J.A. Date: 20050826 Docket: A-236-05 Citation: 2005 FCA 281 Present: PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVER Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents REASONS FOR ORDER PELLETIER J.A. [1] The appellant Corporation of the District of West Vancouver (the District) brings this motion for an order settling the contents of the Appeal Book as a result of the refusal of the respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, as represented by the Ministry of Transportation (the Province), to agree to the inclusion of certain affidavits in the Appeal Book. The other respondent, the Attorney General of Canada (Canada), is prepared to consent to the inclusion of the affidavits. [2] The District is appealing from the dismissal of its application for judicial review of a screening decision by federal environmental authorities in relation to certain portions of the Sea to Sky Highway Improvement Project, specifically those portions dealing with the Larsen Creek wetland and the Eagleridge Bluffs. [3] It is common ground that the affidavits in question were not before the initial decision maker, and that the application judge excluded them from consideration in coming to his decision. The Province objects to the inclusion of these materials in the Appeal Book on the ground that since they were not before the initial decision maker, they were not to be considered by the application judge and, in fact, were not considered by him. The District argues that the Province is confusing the merits of the appeal with the issue of the contents of the appeal book. The affidavits were part of the record before the application judge and are thus eligible for inclusion in the Appeal Book in this Court. [4] While Rule 343(2) provides that the parties shall only include in the Appeal Book those documents which are required to dispose of the matter on appeal, the Court has previously recognized that it is very difficult for a motion judge to assess what might be material to the issues on appeal. See Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of the Environment), (2001) 278 N.R. 190, 2001 FCA 221 at para. 4. Consequently, there is a tendency to err on the side of caution and to resolve doubt in favour of inclusion. [5] That said, if the affidavits were not before the initial decision maker, and if they were not considered by the application judge, it is difficult to see how they could be required to dispose of a matter in issue in the appeal. [6] The District says that the affidavit of its expert in forestry, Mr. Hansen, is necessary to show that its concern about blowdown of trees is a real concern and not a hypothetical issue. I see nothing in the application judge's reasons, or in the Notice of Appeal which suggests that the legitimacy of the District's concerns about blowdown is in issue. [7] As for the other affidavits, they are said to be relevant to the issues of the background to the Sea to Sky Highway Improvement Project and to the District's efforts to understand the timeline for construction of the overland highway as well as to the status of the federal permit issuance. Again, I see nothing in the application judge's reasons or in the Notice of Appeal which raises these matters as issues in even the remotest way. [8] Since the application judge's decision to exclude these affidavits from consideration has not been appealed, I am unable to see how their inclusion in the Appeal Book will assist in the disposition of the matters in issue in the appeal. [9] Given that the motion before me is one to settle the contents of the Appeal Book, it makes little sense to dismiss the motion simply because the appellant has not succeeded on the issue of the four affidavits. Accordingly, there will be an order that the contents of the Appeal Book shall be as set out in Schedule A to the Notice of Motion, except for items 7 to 10 inclusive which are to be excluded. Costs will be costs in the cause. "J.D. Denis Pelletier" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-236-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVER and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PELLETIER J.A. DATED: August 26, 2005 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Mr. John J.L. Hunter For the Appellant Mr. K. Michael Stephens Mr. George H. Copley For the Respondent, HMTQ in Right of the Province of B.C. Mr. Alan Louie For the Respondent, Attorney General of Canada SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Hunter Voith Vancouver, B.C. For the Appellant Ministry of the Attorney General For the Respondent, HMTQ in Right Victoria, B.C. of the Province of B.C. Department of Justice For the Respondent, Attorney Vancouver, B.C. General of Canada