Citation and Court Information
CITATION: Save Money and Reduce Traffic Coalition Inc. v. Minister of the Environment, 2012 ONSC 502
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 518/09
DATE: 20120119
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
A.C.J. S.C. CUNNINGHAM, JENNINGS AND GRAY JJ.
BETWEEN:
SAVE MONEY AND REDUCE TRAFFIC COALITION INC.
Applicant
– and –
HONOURABLE JOHN GERRETSEN, MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Respondent
COUNSEL:
Rodney V. Northey and Konstantine J. Stavrakos, for the Applicant
Dennis W. Brown, Q.C., Brian A. Blumenthal and Andrea Cole, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: January 19, 2012
Oral Reasons for Judgment
GRAY J. (orally)
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the approval by the Minister of the Environment of certain Terms of Reference for an environmental assessment regarding the Brantford-Cambridge Transportation Corridor. Under the Terms of Reference, the Minister of Transportation proposed a study area in which various highway alternatives would be considered and their environmental impact determined.
[2] The applicant asserts that the Terms of Reference are inconsistent with a Growth Plan made under the Places To Grow Act, 2005. As a preliminary matter, the respondent argues that the application is premature. We are inclined to agree, but in view of the comprehensive arguments made to us, we have decided to deal with them. We should note at this point that nothing we say here would preclude any challenge that may be made to any decision made by either the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Transportation in the future once the ultimate determination is made as to the exact route of any highway or any potential environmental impact of such a route.
[3] When all of the various arguments ably made by the applicant are boiled down, the applicant must satisfy us that the Terms of Reference and the Minister of the Environment’s approval of them do not conform with or conflict with the Growth Plan. We do not accept that submission.
[4] The Growth Plan was made effective June 16, 2006 and it applies to what is termed the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GGH”), that includes the specific area of concern here. It is fair to say that the Growth Plan sets out a number of principles for growth within the area defined in the Growth Plan. Many of those principles are general in nature and they apply to a number of different aspects including transportation and transit. Without intending to be comprehensive, a number of the salient provisions included in the Growth Plan are as follows: It is noted on p. 7 of the Growth Plan that in preparing for the future it is essential that planning for the GGH take into account the importance and the unique characteristics and strength of its economy. These include the increasing number of automobiles that are travelling over longer distances resulting in clogged transportation corridors including those that provide access to our critical border crossings, traffic congestion and the delay in movement of goods, costing Ontario upwards of five billion dollars in lost GDP each year. It is noted on p.8 that this Plan address these challenges through policy directions, that, among other things, will identify and support a transportation network that links urban growth centres through an extensive multi-modal system anchored by efficient public transit, together with highway systems for moving people and goods.
[5] On p. 9 it is noted that “getting around will be easy and integrated transportation network will allow people choices for easy travel both within and between urban centres throughout the region. Public transit will be fast, convenient and affordable. Automobiles, while still a significant means of transport will be only one of a variety of effective and well-used choices for transportation. Walking and cycling will be practical elements of our urban transportation systems.”
[6] At p. 24 of the Plan, it is noted that in planning for the development, optimization and/or expansion of new or existing transportation corridors, the Ministers of Public Infrastructure Renewal and Transportation, other Ministers of the Crown, other public agencies and municipalities will do certain things. There are listed a number of aspects of transportation corridors that would be ultimately constructed within the region covered by the Plan.
[7] On p. 26 there are a number of features mentioned in terms of moving goods, and it is noted that the first priority of highway investment is to facilitate efficient goods movement by linking inter modal facilities, international gateways and communities within the GGH.
[8] In terms of policies for implementation and interpretation, on p. 36 of the Plan, under the heading, “General Implementation and Interpretation”, it’s noted that unless otherwise stated, the boundaries and lines displayed on the Schedules to the Plan provide general direction only and should not be read to scale.
[9] Of some significance, as far as the applicant’s argument is concerned, is the inclusion towards the end of the Plan of Schedule 6, entitled Moving Goods. The Schedule itself is essentially a map of the Golden Horseshoe. Included in the map is the specific area between Cambridge and Brantford that is of concern, here and included on that map is a red line connecting the two centres which appears to be co-extensive with the existing Highway 24. It is the applicant’s position that any new transportation corridor must essentially follow the current route of Highway 24.
[10] The Terms of Reference, which are quite voluminous, consist of a proposal to study, within what is called the Analysis Area, various transportation alternatives which are not specifically identified. The Analysis Area in general includes the area between the City of Cambridge, the City of Brantford and lands both to the west and the east of Highway 24, which runs between the two cities. The north end of the Analysis Area is roughly bounded by Highway 401 and the south end of the area is roughly bounded by Highway 403.
[11] As noted, there is nothing in the Terms of Reference that identifies any specific preferred route of any highway between cities or indeed anywhere within the Analysis Area, although as argued by the applicant, in previous proposals a preferred area running through the territory of concern to the applicant was identified as the preferred route.
[12] As noted earlier, the bottom line of the applicant’s position is that the proposed study or environmental assessment is something that conflicts with or is not in conformity with the Growth Plan. Since any potential route of a new highway might not follow the route of Highway 24, the applicant submits that the Terms of Reference conflict with or are not in conformity with the Growth Plan.
[13] We disagree with the applicant’s submission. Specifically, we are unable to agree that Schedule 6 of the Growth Plan precludes the consideration of a route that is not specifically delineated on that Schedule and that specifically does not conform with the current route of Highway 24. We see nothing in the text of the Growth Plan that would compel that result and as noted, the lines on the Schedules are said to provide general direction only.
[14] Before concluding, I would make two observations. First, we are of the view that the standard of review of the Minister’s determination, if one could call it that, to approve the Terms of Reference, is, in our view, one of reasonableness. In our view, that conclusion inexorably flows from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Sutcliffe v. Ontario (Minister of the Environment) (2004), 2004 31687 (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 213. While the Minister did not make specific reference to the Planning Act, upon which the applicant relies, it seems clear to us that the Minister, in considering the public interest, would undoubtedly have had in mind the provisions of the Planning Act and the Growth Plan. It is quite clear from the text of the Terms of Reference that the Growth Plan was indeed considered. The legislation, while not the Minister’s home statute, would constitute legislation that is closely related. In our view, the Minister’s determination was reasonable.
[15] Second, as noted earlier, nothing said in these reasons should be construed as precluding the applicant from challenging any future decisions that may be made either by the Minister of Transportation or by the Minister of the Environment in due course.
[16] For the foregoing reasons, the application is dismissed.
[17] Costs submissions will be entertained by the Court in writing.
A.C.J.S.C. CUNNINGHAM
JENNINGS J.
GRAY J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 19, 2012
Date of Release: January 23, 2012
CITATION: Save Money and Reduce Traffic Coalition Inc. v. Minister of the Environment, 2012 ONSC 502
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 518/09
DATE: 20120119
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
A.C.J. S.C. CUNNINGHAM, JENNINGS AND GRAY JJ.
BETWEEN:
SAVE MONEY AND REDUCE TRAFFIC COALITION INC.
Applicant
– and –
HONOURABLE JOHN GERRETSEN, MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GRAY J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 19, 2012
Date of Release: January 23, 2012