### •-^ARTMENTO F BEFOR E TH E • I-NSPORWIO N DEPARTMEN

T O FTRANSPORTATIO

N ^t t OPERAIiON

S WASHINGTON , D.C . mMA R! I A !! : 2'=

i Application o

f PORTE RAIRLINE S INC . fo r a n exemption pursuan

t to 4 9 U.S.C . § 4010 9 an daforeign ai

r carrie r permit pursuan t t o 49U.S.C . §4130 1 (Canada-U.S. ) Docke t No . OST-2007-2740 2

MOTIO N FO RISSUANC E OFA FOREIG N AI RCARRIE RPERMI T Communication s wit

hrespect t o thi s documen

t shouldb e sen

t to : Joh n E . Gillick DavidM . Endersbee Zuckert , Scout

t & Rasenberger , L.L.P . 88 8 Seventeent

hStreet , N W Washington , D

C 2000 6 Tel : (202 ) 973-793 9 Fax : (202 ) 342-068 3 Email : iegillick(5),zsrlaw.co

m dmendersbee(@,2srlaw.co

m Counse l fo r Porte r Airline s Inc . Marc h11,201 1BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C . Applicatio n o f PORTE RAIRLINE S INC . for a n exemptio n pursuan t

t o 4 9 U.S.C . § 4010 9 an daforeig n ai r

carrie r permi t pursuan t t o 4 9 U.S.C . § 4130 1 (Canad a- U.S. ) Docke t No . OST-2007-2740 2

MOTIO N FO RISSUANC E O FA FOREIG N AI RCARRIE RPERMI T Porte r Airline s Inc . ("Porter" ) hereb y move s th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n ("Department" ) t o mak e final th e tentativ e findings an dconclusion s se t fort hi n it s Octobe r

13 , 2009 , Sho w Caus e Orde r (Orde r 2009-10-2 ) an dissu e th e foreig n ai r carrie r permi t attache dt o that orde r authorizin g Porte r

t o provid e schedule dan dcharte r foreig n ai r

transportatio n o f persons , property an dmai l betwee n Canad aan dth e Unite dStates . Issuanc e o f Porter' s foreig n ai r carrie r permi t i s fully consisten t

wit hth e applicabl e statut e (4 9 U.S.C . § 41302) , th e Department' s regulation s and , mos t importantly , th e Ope n Skie s Ai r Transport

Agreemen t betwee n Canad aan dth e Unite dState s an dthi s permi t should , therefore , b e issue da s soo n a s possible . In support

thereof. Porte r

show s a s follows : 1 . A s Porte r

demonstrate di n it s Consolidate dAnswe r respondin g t o th e matter s raise d b y Continenta l Airlines , Inc . ("Continental" ) an dCommunity Airport Impac t Revie w ("Community AIR" ) i n thei r objection s t o th e sho w caus e orde r (Porte r Consolidate dAnswe r

a t 2-3) , non e o f

th e issue s raise db y eithe r Continenta l o r

Community AI Rrelate di n an y manne rwhatsoever t o th e Department' s tentativ e findings an dconclusion s concernin g Porter' s fitness o r complianc e withth e applicabl e statutory standards . Instead , Continenta l an dCommunity AI R focuse dthei r

oppositio n o n allege dacces s issue s at th e Bill y Bisho p Toront o City Airport ("BBTCA" ) - issue s fa

r exceedin g th e prope r

focu s o f aforeig n ai r

carrie r permi t proceedin g i n whic hadul y designate dforeig n ai r carrie r seek s t o provid e servic e that i s clearl y provide dfor

i n an Ope n Skie s bilatera l ai r transport agreement . 2 . A s Porte r

note di n it s Consolidate dAnswe r (at 5-7) , th e Toront o Port

Authority ("TPA" ) poste daBulleti n o n Octobe r 16 , 2009 , i n whic hth e Authority invite dcarrier s t o expres s thei r

interes t i n servin g th e airport

an dals o indicate dtha t

aNois e Exposur e Forecas t Contou r Study was underwa y t o evaluat e th e fixture capacity at BBTC A withi n th e prescribe d requirement s an destablishe dlimit s o f th e 199 3 Tripartit e Agreemen t concernin g th e airport . Th e stud y was t o b e complete di n Decembe r 2009 , at whic htim e th e TP A woul db e i n apositio n t o establis han appropriat e limi t o n th e numbe r

o f operation s at

th e airport , and , base do n th e result s o f tha t study , allocat e availabl e capacity t o U.S . an dothe r ai r carrier s intereste di n servin g th e airport . Se e Consolidate dAnswe r at 5-6 . 3 . Consisten t

withthat

commitment , th e TP A announce di n aBulleti n issue di n lat e Decembe r

200 9 that

i t ha dreceive dapreliminary executiv e summary outlinin g th e result s o f th e update dnois e impac t

study an dcapacity assessmen t for th e BBTC A consisten t

withth e leve l o f dail y commercia l flights permitte db y th e 198 3 Tripartit e Agreement . O n February 8 , 2010 , th e TP A dul y release dth e result s o f thi s comprehensiv e nois e managemen t study prepare db y th e Jacob s Consultanc y Canada , Inc . whic hdetermine dthat th e maximu mnumbe r

o f slot s availabl e a t BBTC A woul db e atota l o f 20 2 upo n completio n o f th e ne w termina l (Exhibi t A) . O n Apri l 9 , 2010 , th e TP A announce dthat it hadappointe dAirport

Coordinatio n Limited , an independen tconsultanc y firmspecializin g i n deman dan dcapacity assessmen t an dschedulin g proces s management , t o manag e commercia l carrie r deman dan dallocat e slot s for th e BBTC A a s wel l a s issu e aformal Reques t

for Proposal s for

additiona l commercia l airlin e carrier s a t BBTCA . Lastly , th e TP A announced , o n Jun e 23 , 2010 , tha t Continental ' an dAi r

Canad aha dsubmitte d qualifyin g response s t o th e RFP , an dtha t AC C ha dallocate dth e 9 0 availabl e BBTC A slot s amon g Continental , Ai r

Canad aan dPorter , withContinenta l receivin g 1 6 slots . Ai r Canad a receivin g 3 0 slot s (fo r

atota l o f

4 6 slot s for

th e ne w entrant , allianc e partners ) an dPorte r receivin g 4 4 slots , withne w servic e t o begi n a s soo n a s th e ne w termina l i s complete dat th e en d o f 2010 . Th e TP A als o indicate dtha t Continenta l an dAi r

Canad awil l b e require dt o ente r int o a commercia l carrie r

operatin g agreemen t

withTP A befor e the y can secur e termina l spac e from Cit y Centr e Termina l Corporation , TCA' s termina l operator , whic hha s th e exclusiv e righ t an d contractua l obligatio n t o provid e commercia l carrier s withacces s t o it s ne w facility . 4 . Ai r Canad achallenge dth e Decembe r an dApri l "actions " o f th e TP A i n tw o applications for

judicia l revie w filedwithth e Federal Court o f Canada . Ai r

Canad av . Toront o Por t Authority an dPorte r

Airline s Inc. , Docket s T-488-1 0 an dT-692-10 . A hearing o n thes e applicafion s was hel dJul y 6-8 , 2010 , i n Vancouver , B.C. , and , o n Jul y 21 , 2010 , Justic e Roger Hughe s issue dhi s Judgment , orderin g dismissa l o f botho f Ai r Canada' s application s (Exhibi t B) . In hi s "Reason s for Judgmen t

an dJudgment, " Justic e Hughe s foun dtha t "TPA' s action s wer e withi n th e acceptabl e rang e o f reasonabl e actions " (Decisio n at 73 ) an dtha t

- I t was not unreasonabl e fo

r TP A t o grandfathe r

Porter' s existin g slots , no r wa s it unreasonabl e t o interpre t a"fair " proportio n o f

allocatio n o f

ne w slot s t o b e one hal f o f thos e slots . Ther e i s n o evidenc e before m e t o sugges t that TP A an dPorte r wer e doin g anythin g mor e than engagin g i n normal , reasonabl e commercia l activity . A s I hav e found , ther e i s n o expectatio n that Ai r Canad ashoul dhav e i n

' N o othe r U.S . carrie r

submitte darespons e t o th e RF P issue db y th e TPA .som e way bee n consulte ddurin g th e process . * + * It i s no t for thi s Court

t o rewrit e o r

se t asid e what

i s i n reality acommercia l contrac t simpl y becaus e on e o f

th e prospectiv e partie s believe s i t shoul dhav e gotte n abette r

deal . Decisio n at

76 . Further , Justic e Hughes ordere dthat Ai r Canad apa y cost s i n th e amoun t o f $992,67 1 t o Porte r

an d$899,98 2 t o th e TPA . 5 . Followin g thi s judgment , discussion s amongs t th e partie s commence dan datermina l leas e an doperatin g agreemen t ha s bee n reache dwithAi r Canad at o utiliz e th e ne w facilitie s at BBTCA . Se e Exhibi t

C . Withit s slo t

allocatio n an dtermina l acces s settled . Ai r Canad a aimounce do n Marc h4 th e launc ho f ne w service s fi-omBBTCA , t o b e operate db y it s partne r Sk y Regiona l a s Ai r

Canad aExpress , beginnin g Ma y 1 . Ai r Canad awil l offe

r u p t o 1 5 dail y non-sto p flights t o Montrea l usin g Das h8 Q-40 0 aircraf t an dha s alread y begu n sellin g fare s for thes e flights o n it s website . Se e Exhibi t D . 6 . In summary , th e Toront o Port Authority ha s consistentl y acte di n areasonabl e manne r i n determinin g th e capacity o f th e BBTC A an dallocatin g th e availabl e capacity amon g th e thre e airline s tha t

hav e expresse dadesir e t o serv e th e airport , including , i n particular . Continental , whic hha s bee n authorize d1 6 slot s that can b e use di n conjunctio n withit s allianc e partner' s 3 0 slot s for atota l o f

4 6 slots . Moreover , Ai r Canad aha s actuall y begu n sellin g it s ne w servic e t o Montreal fromBBTCA . Unde r thes e circumstances , th e Departmen t shoul dprocee dforthwit

ht o issu e aforeig n ai r

carrie r permi t t o Porte r at th e conclusio n o f

th e presidentia l revie w process . Se e Join t Applicatio n o f

Unite dAirlines , Inc . an dBritis hMidlan dAirway s Ltd. , Orde r 2000-7-2 7 (Jul . 24 , 2000) ; Application s o f Scandinavia n Airline s Systeman dLufthans aGerma n Airlines , Orde r 99-2-2 2 (Feb . 22 , 1999) ; Join t Applicatio n o f

America n Airlines , Inc . an dCanadia n Airline s Internationa l Lt det . AL , Orde r 96-7-2 1 (Jul . 16 , 1996 ) an dApplicatio n o f Ai r Canada ,Orde r

86-9-4 9 (Sep . 23 , 1986) . WHEREFORE , for

th e foregoin g reasons . Porte r Airline s Inc . respectfiill y request s tha t th e Departmen t

makes final it s tentativ e decisio n i n thi s proceedin g an dissu e th e foreig n ai r carrie r permi t attache dt o Orde r

2009-10- 2 authorizin g Porte r t o provid e schedule dan dcharte r foreig n ai r

transportatio n o f

persons , property an dmai l betwee n Canad aan dth e Unite dState s pursuan t t o th e Canada-U.S . Ope n Skie s Ai r Transport

Agreement . Respectfull y submitted .



### J E . GilHc k Joh k Davi dM . Endersbe e Zuckert , Scoutt

& Rasenberger , L.L.P . 88 8 SeventeenthStreet , N W Washington , D C 2000 6 Tel : (202 ) 973-793 9 Fax : (202 ) 342-068 3 Email : iegillick(a),zsrlaw.co m dmendersbee(g),zsrlaw.co m Counse l for

Porte r Airline s Inc . Marc h11 , 201 1CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s 11t

hda y o f Marc h2011 , acop y o f

th e foregoin g Motion for Issuanc e o f

Foreig n Ai r

Carrie r Permi t wa s serve db y emai l o n th e partie s name dbelow : R . Bruc e Keiner , Jr . Lorrain e B . Halloway Counse l for

Continenta l Airline s Crowel l & Morin g 100 1 Pennsylvani aAvenue , N.W . Washington , D.C . 2000 4 rbkeiner@cr o we l 1 .co m Lhalloway@crowell.co m Hershe l Kame n Vic e President—Internationa l an dRegulatory Affair s Dan Weis s Continenta l Airlines , Inc . Governmen t

Affairs—8" ' Floo r 160 0 Smit hStree t Dept . HQSG V Houston , T X 7700 2 hkamen@coair.co m dan.weiss@coair.co m WilliamFreeman Chai r Community AI R P.O . Bo x 8105 7 57 B Harbou r

Square Toronto , Ontario , Canad a M5 J 2R 0 billfreeman@rogers.co m info@communityair.or g Pau l Arvanitidi s Counsello r

(Transportation ) Canadia n Embass y 50 1 Pennsylvani aAvenue , N W Washington , D C 2000 1 paul.arvanitidis@intemational.gc.c a Krishn a"Kris " Ur s Deputy Assistan t

Secretary for Transportatio n Affair s U.S . Departmen t

o f Stat e 220 1 C Street , N.W. , Roo m583 0 Washington , D.C . 2052 0 urskr@state.go v



# C - Davi dM . Endersbe eExhibi t A Jacob s Consultanc y - Bill y Bishop Toront o City Airport Capacity Report

# JACOB S CONSULTANC Y



## BILL Y BISHO P TORONT O CIT Y AIRJPOR T CAPACIT Y REPOR T

February201 0

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y TABL E O FCONTENT S Pag e INTRODUCTIO N 1 Nois e Constraint s 1 Othe r Capacity Constraint s 1 DEMAN D FORECAST S 2 Plannin g Peak

Hou r 3 CAPACITY/DEMAN D ASSESSMEN T 5 Capacity Updat e 5 NE FConstraint s 6 Taxiway/Apro n Demand s 6 Passenge r

Termina l 8 Ai r Termina l Demand s 1 1 Ferr y 1 3 Ferr y Demand s 1 3 Passenge r

Transfe r Facilitie s 1 7 Groun dAcces s an dCur b 1 7 TP A OBJECTIVE S 1 8 BBTC A RULE S FO RCAPACIT Y & SLO T MANAGEMEN T 1 9 SLO T COORDINATIO N 2 0

Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Bill yBisf)o p Toront o Centr e Airpor t

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y 

### INTRODUCTIO N BiU y Bisho p Toront o Cit

y Airpor t (BBTCA ) currentl y ha s on e carrie r operatin g schedule dai r service , Porte r

Airlines , whic hha s bee n addin g flights an dincreasin g passenge r traffi c a s ne w aircraf t ar e delivered . Othe r carrier s hav e expresse da n interes t i n operatin g at

th e Airpor t

a s earl y a s Apri l 2010 . Th e tota l requeste dslot s ar e expecte dt o excee dth e availability eve n i n 201 0 an dth e pressur e fo r slot s wil l continu e t o increas e ove r time . 

### Nois e Constraint s Helicopter s ar e no w require dt o follo w flight path s an dthi s wU

I tri^e r thei r iaclusio n i n th e NE Fcalculation s unde r

th e Tripartit e Agreemen t fo r 2010 , possibl y reducin g th e slot s availabl e fo r larg e turboprops : "Th e actua l NE FContour s prepare di n accordanc e wit hsubsection (1 ) shal l include th e nois e attributabl e t

o helicopters fo r

any calenda

r yea r durin g whic

hfligh t path s wer e require dto b

e followe dfo r a t leas t hal f o f tha t yea r pursuan t to sectio n 35 " Tripartit e Agreemen t Ye t anothe r facto r tha t may reduc e th e slot s availabl e i s th e flights traffi c befor e 07:0 0 an dafter 22:00 . T o th e exten t

tha t ther e ar e mor e o f

thes e quie t

hou r flights tha n forecast , the y significantl y reduc e th e availabl e slots . 

### Othe rCapacit yConstraint s Th e constraint s o f

th e Tripartit e Agreemen t ar e no t th e onl y issue s i n determinin g th e Airport' s capability t o dea l wit hincreasin g traffi c volumes . Th e sit e i s spac e constraine dan dothe r element s o f

th e Airpor t

o r Airpor t acces s may poin t

t o slo t Hmit s tha t

ar e differen t

tha n thos e limite db y aircraf

t noise . Th e Toront o Por t

Authorit y ha s determine dtha t severa l o f

th e system s wi

U b e a t capacity i n th e nea r fiature an dth e Airpor t

wil l b e require dt o addres s thes e capacity constraint s a s carrie r operation s increase . Several change s ar e alread y underwa y t o addres s som e o f thes e shortfalls , includin g th e ne w ai r termina l an dne w ferr

y an dth e propose dpedestria n tunnel . I n aconstraine denvironment , slot s becom e importan t t o th e airline s o n atim e basis . I t i s insufficien t

fo r exampl e t o allocat e acarrie r 1 0 slot s betwee n 13:0 0 an d14:00 , o r eve n t o allocat e acarrie r

2 0 slot s aday i f

th e availabihty o f

facilitie s mean s tha t

i n reality thos e slot s canno t b e use da t

commerciall y usefu l times. lAT A define s aslo t as : "The scheduledtim

e o f arriva l o r departure availabl e fo r

allocatio n by , o r

a s allocate dby , acoordinato r fo r a n aircraf

t movemen t o n aspecifi c date a t acoordinate dairport. " Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Bill yBisho p Toront o Centr e Airpor t JTe2100 0

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y BBTC A i s indee ddifferen t fro mman y othe r

airport s wit hslo t

management . A t

ver y larg e airports , slot s ar e usuall y manage da s aresul t o f runwa y capacit y constraints , an ds o precis e timing o f slot s i s commerciall y importan t t o th e airlines . Fo r

example , th e runwa y capacity fo r departin g aircraf

t ma y b e 2 5 a n hour , ye t

competin g airline s ma y al l wan t a07:0 0 departure . I f tha t wer e no t managed , th e 25 * 07:0 0 flight woul di afac t

tak e of f at 08:00 . A t BBTCA , th e nois e base dconstraints , a s wel l a s othe r constraint s ma y mea n tha t th e maximu mnumbe r

o f schedule ddeparture s i n a n hou r wi Q b e i n th e rang e o f

7-10 , wel l belo w runwa y capacity . A t

thi s point , i t

i s clea r tha t managemen t

o f slot s an dschedule s wil l b e par t o f th e Airpor t

operatio n fro m201 0 onward s an dtha t th e approac ht o capacity an dschedul e managemen t

need s t o b e develope dnow . Th e objective s o f

thi s stud y are :

• T o revie w capacity an dforecas t deman do n all majo r

airpor t elements ;

• T o revie w th e impac t o f th e aircraf

t typ e mi x o n capacity an dslo t use ;

• T o develo p propose dcapacity hmit s an drelate dschedul e an dslo t constraints ; an d

• T o revie w possibl e objective s an dapproache s fo r slot/schedul e management . T o mee t th e objectives , th e consultin g team :

- Prepare d201 0 movemen t forecast s t o reflec t

th e possibilit y o f

growt hi n movement s o f th e existin g an dne w carrier s servin g th e Airport ;

• Compare dth e capacity an ddeman dfo r variou s element s o f

th e airport , includin g th e NE F constraine dcapacity ;

• Develope dobjective s fo r managin g th e slots ; an d

• Propose dho w ongoin g slo t managemen t

ca n b e implemented . 

### DEMAN D FORECAST S Base do n apreliminar y assessmen t at th e star t o f th e projec t

tha t NE Flimit s unde r

existin g deman dpattern s woul dlimi t slot s t o approximatel y 166 , ademan dmode l fo r th e us e o f

thes e slot s was prepare dusin g existin g schedule s an dcommerciall y viabl e schedule s an ddestination s fo r slot s no t currenti y i n use . Tabl e 1 provide s asummar y o f th e destination s serve dan dnumber s o f flights assume dunde r th e 16 6 slo t

scenario .

Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Bill yBisho p Toront o Centr e Airpor t JTS2100 0

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y Tabl e 1 Assumption s r e Destination s Serve dan dNumber s o f Flight s Unde r

a16 6 Slo t

Scenari o

Secto r Domesti c

Transborde r

Tota l Tota l Slot s Origi n

YO W YQ B YQ T YS B YU L Tota l Dom . BO S CL E DC A EW R MD W Tota l T B Aircraf

t Departure s 2 3 3 3 1 2 0 5 0 4 3 4 1 6 6 3 3 8 3 16 6 Departin g

Seat s 1,49 0 21 0 21 0 7 0 1,28 0 3,26 0 28 0 21 0 28 0 1,12 0 42 0 2,31 0 5,57 0

Th e minimu mnumbe r

o f aircraf t gates require db y secto r assumin g a2 0 minut e buffe r tim e betwee n flights i s presente di n Tabl e 2 . A gat e char t fo r th e ne w 1 0 gat e passenge r termina l fo r th e 16 6 slo t

flight schedul e i s presente di n Exhibi t 1 . Exhibi t

2 show s th e aircraf

t gat e requirement s b y tim e o f

day respectively . 

### Plannin g Pea k

Hou r Base do n th e nomina l schedul e an dassume dloa dfactors , th e plannin g pea k hou r number s are : Enplanin g domesti c passenger s 28 8 Enplanin g transborde r

pa s senger s 21 0 Enplanin g Combine dpassenger s 46 7 Deplanin g domesti c passenger s 28 5 Deplanin g transborde r

passenger s 26 3 Deplanin g combine dpassenger s 53 0

Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Bill yBisho p Toront o Centr e Airpor t

### i ? a

•§• § 3 ^

•a ' o > =5

- : ? ro O D = » = : a > 14 ^

- H P g w P 3 - l o O O T J 3 . H = 5 O c 2 ; fB - O o ) 3 O ••(- ) O < D R 3 3 ff C D ( D 0 3 - n o - > u > ^ " C D T 3 3 . o C D ' *

3 l O



## - e

— 1 D > 3 3 -

- • »< - ^ o 8 J ? 3 2 - 3 O . o " o > S > £ 2 o 

### a - ^

i- » n i- t 5 > 

## o £ 

### 3 - 

### n t r 

# s e n ! ^ t rCT^ re S - I - ' 1- ^ 2 ^ c s 0 3 O hc l ( W c r r + c « o iJ - m a C 

# 8

n

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y Tabl e 2 .

Minimu mNumbe r

o f Aircraf t Gate s Secto r Al l Domestic * Transborder * Swin g * Excludin g swin g gat e Require db y Secto r (2010 ) Gate s 1 0 5 4 1

Exhibi t 2 Gat e Requirement s b y Tim e o f Da y

:::1 2 1 0

• a o > I . " 5 c r & O Al l Airtihes , Al l Sector s

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 Tim e o f Day(hour ) . .^^^ ^ JACOB S CONSULTANC Y 

### CAPACITY/DEMAN D ASSESSMEN T Capacit yUpdat e Th e capacity o f

th e Airpor t

ha s normall y bee n though t o f a s governe db y th e NE F constraint s containe di n th e Tripartit e Agreement . Whil e th e nois e boundar y condition s ar e very likel y t o govern , a s traffi c increases , othe r element s o f

th e Airpor t

ma y als o hav e capacity constraints . Eac hmajo r elemen t i s discusse dbelow .

Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Bill yBisho p Toront o Centr e Airpor t

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y 

### NE F Constraint s Th e NE Fconstraint s establishe di n th e Tripartit e Agreemen t ar e dependen t

o n th e traffi c mix , th e time o f

flights an dth e approac hslop e fo r arrivin g aircraft :

• Th e modifie dQ40 0 currentl y operate dat th e airpor t

(Q402 ) i s quiete r

tha n th e earlie r serie s o f thi s aircraft ;

• Highe r

approac hslope s bein g flown a t th e Airpor t

resul t i n alowe r

nois e impact ;

• HeUcopte r

operation s ar e require dt o b e incorporate di n th e nois e calculation s unde r som e conditions . Les s tha n V z o f th e helicopte r

operation s a t

th e Airpor t

ar e medeva c operations ;

• Th e volum e o f

flight trainin g operation s an drecreationa l flying affect s th e nois e envelop e an dtherefor e th e nois e controlle dslot s availabl e fo r commercia l operations ; an d

• Flight s befor e 07:0 0 an dafte r 10:0 0 ar e heavil y weighte di n th e nois e modellin g program , s o asmal l chang e i n quie t perio doperation s ha s abi g impac t o n tota l nois e constraine dslots . Variou s nois e scenario s wer e developed , wit hchangin g mixe s o f aircraf t t3^es , day/nigh t operation s an dvolume s o f non-schedule dservic e traffi c (GA , hehcopters , etc.) . Th e scenari o selecte dfo r

managin g slot s tha t

mos t closel y matche dth e Por t Authority' s busines s objective s an dit s commitment s t o managin g nois e (th e Operatin g Scenario ) i s th e scenari o tha t restrict s quie t

perio doperation s t o th e seve n existin g schedule dservic e flights tha t operat e 22:00-06:5 9 an dt o th e evenin g operation s o f genera l aviatio n fro m22:0 0 t o 22:5 9 an di n whic hth e forecas t fleet mi x o f heav y turboprop s i s 90 % Q40 2 aircraft . Thi s scenari o yield s 20 2 slots . 

### Taxiway/Apro n Demand s Th e schedule s generall y sho w al l gates bein g use dovernight , wit hu p t o te n departure s i n a fairly shor t

perio di n th e mornin g pea k period . Thi s wi

U creat e apotentia l congestio n issu e o n th e apro n whe n Runwa y 2 6 i s use dfo r arrival s an ddepartures . Th e departur e queu e ca n potentiall y bloc k

acces s t o severa l o f

th e gate s a s Exhibi t

3 shows .

Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Bill yBisho p Toront o Centr e Airpor t

# I I | t 

# t 3 m 

## a a . 

### 8 " o 

### 9 .

O 3 . 0 ) ^ 

## B 

## 5 ! i

C O o 

### o" o



### o Q ^ ' ^ 

## S " > 

# I f 0 ) 3 

# i O 

## D c ( D C 3 " C O 

# ?

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y 

### Passenge rTermina l Th e ne w passenge r

termina l i s i n th e proces s o f completion : seve n gate s ar e expecte dt o b e availabl e b y Marc h2010 , an datota l ofte n gate s ar e expecte db y Octobe r 2010 , subjec t

t o projec t completion . Gate s A s Exhibi t

1 illustrated , wit hth e tur n times fo r th e larg e turbopro p aircraf t an da2 0 minut e buffe r betwee n flights, th e estimate dgat e capacit y is : • Fo r domesti c gate s —

1 3 turn s pe r

day ; • Fo r transborde r

gates —9 turn s pe r

day ; an d

• Fo r aswin g gat e —1 1 turn s pe r day . I t i s importan t

t o recogniz e tha t

acapacit y of

, say , 1 3 turn s pe r

day o n adomesti c gat e doe s no t mea n tha t

al l suc hgate s woul db e use dfo r 1 3 turn s pe r

day . Ther e ma y b e times tha t agat e i s availabl e tha t

ar e no t commerciall y usefu l t o carriers . Passenge rTermina l Deman d Forecas t Methodolog y Th e forecas t

demand s o n th e passenge r termina l an dacces s syste mt o th e Airpor t wer e develope dfro mth e schedule s develope di n Chapte r 1 1 an dth e following :

• Th e forecas t

schedule s wer e combine dwit hJacob s Consultancy' s termina l deman dmode l t o determin e pea k

hou r demand s o n th e terminals , give n assume darriva l distribution s o f th e passenger s a t

th e facilitie s an dothe r

assumption s wit hrespec t t o loa dfactor s b y tim e o f day .

• Th e mode l wa s modifie dt o includ e a n additiona l mode l elemen t dealin g wit hdemand s o n th e ferry , enablin g ferry loa dan dcycl e time t o b e modifie dan dshowin g passenger s un accommodate do n ferrie s i f the y becom e overcrowded . Assumption s r e Passenge rArriva l Distribution s Outboun dpassenger s arriv e at th e termina l i n apatter n tha t typicall y see s som e passenger s arrivin g ver y earl y —a s muc ha s tw o hour s befor e thei r flight, an dother s arrivin g muc hclose r t o flight deparmr e time. I n ashutd e typ e operatio n primaril y involvin g shor t hau l flights an d busines s travellers , w e typicall y expec t mos t passenger s t o arriv e i n th e perio d70-3 0 minute s befor e th e schedule ddepartur e time. Exhibi t 4 illustrate s th e assume ddistributio n patter n use d prio r t o th e operatio n o f

U S Preclearance . Wit hpreclearance , w e expec t th e Transborde r

traffi c distributio n t o change . Althoug h passenger s wi

U continu e t o com e a s clos e t o departur e a s the y can , U S Homelan dSecurity require s acut-of

f o f ticketing a n hou r

befor e departur e s o tha t th e passenge r

Us t ca n b e reviewed . Exhibi t

5 illustrate s th e assume ddistributio n wit hpreclearance . Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Toront o Cit yCentr e JT81100 0

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y

Exhibi t 4 Distributio n o f

Departin g Passenger s Arriva l Time s a t th e Terminal . N o U S Preclearanc e

0.1 8 - 0.1 6 0.1 4 • o ( 0 5 0.1 2 *- • » 0.1 0 u . o 0.0 8 c € 0.0 6 o Q . 0.0 4 0.0 2 • • W . . .r . •«; • J , _ ,,,....:•»• • .;^.:—• . ••:• ' / " ^ 

# J /y " 

# V \ W \ \ y ^ M / \ 

# A\ / \ / / \

11 0 10 0 9 0 8 0 7 0 6 0 5 0 4 0 3 0 t o t o t o t o t o t o t o t o t o 12 0 11 0 10 0 9 0 8 0 7 0 6 0 5 0 4 0

Tim e Befor e Fligh t (min ) 2 0 t o 3 0 \1 0 t o 2 0 Ot o 1 0 —•—Off-Pea k —•—Pea k

Exhibi t 5 Distributio n o f

Departin g Passenger s Arriva l Time s a t th e Termina l wit hU S Preclearanc e 0.3 5 0.3 0 0.2 5 0.2 0 0.1 5 0.1 0 0.0 5

- " •— I 1 1 '— I 1 1 • I ' 1 I I W ( " W " 1 [ i M I % • Domesti c • Transborde r

11 0 10 0 9 0 t o 8 0 t o 7 0 t o 6 0 t o 5 0 t o 4 0 t o 3 0 t o 2 0 t o 1 0 t o 0 t o t o t o 10 0 9 0 8 0 7 0 6 0 5 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 12 0 11 0 Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Toront o Cit yCentr e

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y Inboun dpassenger s hav e amuc hdifferen t deman dcharacteristic , especiall y a t aprimaril y shor t haul , primaril y busines s operatio n suc ha s BBTCA . Passenger s empt y th e aircraf t quickl y an d mov e direcd y throug hth e terminal , onl y impede db y pickin g u p lu^ag e and , i n th e cas e o f transborde r

traffic , b y th e processin g o f Custom s an dImmigratio n (Exhibi t 6) . Exhibi t 6 Inboun dPassenge r

Distributio n 1.0 0 0.9 0 0.8 0 0.7 0 0.6 0 0.5 0 0.4 0 0.3 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 - Domesti c -Transborde r

Ot o 1 0 t o 2 0 t o 3 0 t o 4 0 t o 5 0 t o 6 0 t o 7 0 t o 8 0 t o 9 0 t o 10 0 11 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 100 t o t o 11 0 12 0 Assumption s r e Loa d Factor s b yTim e o f Da y Loa dfactor s d o no t

remai n constan t

throughou t

th e day an dw e typicall y expec t the mt o b e highe r durin g th e pea k

deman dperiods . Tabl e 3 illustrate s th e assume dloa dfactors . Thes e loa d factor s ar e use dt o creat e plannin g day demand s an dplannin g pea k hou r deman destimate s Tabl e 3 Assume dloa dfactor s Tim e o f Da y 5:00am-9:00a m 9:00am-3:30p m 3:30pm-7:00p m Afte r7:00p m Loa d Facto r 75 % 60 % 75 %

Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Toront o Cit yCentr e 1 0

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y Ai rTermina l Demand s Exhibit s 7 an d8 illustrat e th e forecas t tim e o f da y demand s o n th e ai r termina l building s fo r th e 16 6 slo t schedul e i n 2010 . Exhibi t 7 Tim e o f Da y Arrivin g Passenge r Deman d201 0 Arrivin g Passenger s i n Hou r 600 '

50 0

20 0 , 

# ' 1 A 

# , nJ I 1 L\

• . 

# ^ i ir j

1 . • - . / . • 

## :5|vy



# fc •:si0'"''::/^'r

V • • J • 

# .d^^ K \ J 

# y A \ 

# i I

• / . . - . 

# m •M-.;: .

I .'•*.••' ' - 

# I I ^ .i& i

':•- * 

# i ^

Tim e o f Da y Exhibi t 8 Forecas t Tim e o f

Da y Departin g Passenge r Deman d201 0 Departin g Passenger s pe rHou r 500 -ngers5S\ 

### 1 ^ 20 0 

# \ \ k l \ \ A/

A 

# n \ A/

L/ \ j l V / .:;--. • • 1 ^ l l 

## i r/

\ \ k i A ---7?' - 

## j> > fe- 

## • - 15 0 10 0 50 -

' ."J * . ^

^ .i ? ^

i ? . # .i ? ." * .«J » . # . ^ .- f .'J ' . # .4 ? .< * .'J ' . # .<S > ^ • % • <» • <> • ,j> - ,^\ - £), • sy - ,», • ^ji - ^ - ^ - ^ - <k - ,5. - ,j> - ,{> • ,{> • ^ - ^ • Tim e o f Da y

Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Toront o Cit yCentr e JT82100 0 1 1

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y Th e termina l desig n was base do n plannin g pea k hou r passenge r

level s o f 67 2 departure s an d 67 2 arrival s an dassume s fu U staffin g b y CATS A an dCBSA . 

### DmaDDmai n Th e nomina l schedule s includ e fou r departin g transborde r

flights i n th e pea k

hour . Th e pea k outboun ddeman di s 21 0 transborde r enplanements . Takin g int o consideratio n th e distributio n o f passenge r

arrival s a t

th e ai r passenge r

termina l an dth e distributio n o f outboun dflights, th e pea k loadin g i n th e preclearanc e are ai s approximatel y 18 0 passenger s i n th e mornin g peak , a s Exhibi t 9 Ulustrates . Thi s passenge r loa dwil l typicall y requir e aholdroo mare ao f approximatel y 3,10 0 s f (290sq.m.) . Th e preclearanc e hol dare ai s sufficiend y larg e an dappear s t o hav e bee n size dfo r approximatel y 22 0 pea k hou r passengers . Exhibi t 9 Transborde r

Enplanement s Hourl y Deman d201 0 Passenge rDeman d b yRigh t Departur e Tim e 20 0 18 0 16 0 14 0 12 0 10 0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0

Tim e o f I3epartur e •DD D DDQUnD D Th e pea k transborde r

arrival s occu r

betwee n 8aman d9am , wit hapea k forecas t deman do f

26 3 deplanin g transborde r

passengers . Takin g int o consideratio n th e distributio n o f deplanements , th e pea k loadin g i n th e CBS A queuin g are ai s somewha t les s a t 25 0 passenger s a s Exhibi t 1 0 illustrates . Thi s area , i n whic hther e i s typicall y n o seating , require s a n approximatel y 2,000s f (190sq.m. ) t o cop e wit hth e forecas t

pea k loading . Th e are ano w unde r constructio n i s approximatel y 26 0 sq.m. , mor e tha n sufficien t t o handl e th e forecas t

pea k hou r loading , provide dtha t

CBS A inspectio n line s ar e staffed . Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t I Toront o Cit yCentr e 1 2 \ JT82100 0

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y Exhibi t 1 0 Transborde r

Deplanement s Hourl y Deman d201 0

30 0 25 0 20 0 15 0 10 0 5 0 Passenge rDeman d b yFligh t Arriva l Tim e

I M M II I II I I' m M i M l ni l Tim e o f Departur e 

### Ferr y Th e ne w ferry wil l b e i n servic e b y Januar y 201 0 an dha s a n uppe r dec k capacit y o f

15 0 passengers , wit hadditiona l capacity thoug hth e us e o f Shutd e buse s o n th e lowe r deck . Tota l peopl e o n board , includin g cre w ar e limite dt o 20 0 b y th e ferr y certification . Ferr yDemand s Th e tim e o f

day o f arrivin g an ddepartin g ai r travelle r demand s translat e int o demand s fo r ferr y an dferr y termina l capacity . I n simpl e terms :

• Departin g passenger s arriv e a t th e ferry termina l i n patter n tha t i s drive n b y thei r

fligh t departur e time (Exhibit s 4 an d5) ;

• Arrivin g passenger s arriv e a t th e ferry termina l ver y quickl y o n deplanin g (Exhibi t 6) ;

• Passenger s queu e fo r th e ferr y an dtak e th e nex t availabl e ferr y unles s ther e i s insufficien t capacity o n th e ferry ; an d

• Th e accumulatio n o f passenger s i n th e ferry terminal s i s afiinction o f ferry cycl e time an d ferry capacity .

Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Toront o Cit yCentr e JTB2100 0 1 3

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y T o mode l ferr

y demands , th e aviatio n demand s wer e translate dint o ferr y demand s a t

a1 5 minut e ferr

y headwa y —i.e. , th e ferr y leave s th e Eirean n Qua y passenge r transfe r faciht y every 1 5 minute s an dleave s th e Islan dpassenge r transfe r faciht y every 1 5 minutes . Whe n th e patter n o f

arrival o f

passenger s at

th e Eirean n Qua y passenge r transfe r faciht y t o catc houtboun dflights i s considered , th e demand s o n th e ferr y ar e muc hles s peake dtha n th e departur e schedules . Exhibi t 1 1 illustrate s th e projecte ddemand s o n th e ferr y departure s fro m th e Eirean n Qua y passenge r transfe r facihty . Exhibi t 1 1 Forecas t Outboun dFerr y Load s o n 1 5 minut e Headwa y 201 0 14 0 12 0 o 10 0 11 1 Q . C O o c U l o z U J ( 0 ( 0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0

1 2 1 2345678 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 12345678 9 1 0 1 1 A M A M A M A M A M A M A M A M A M A M A M A M P M P M P M P M PI M PI M P M P M PI M P M PI M P M TIM E O F DA Y

Th e patter n o f

departure s mean s tha t

eve n withou t

takin g int o consideratio n th e distributio n o f th e passenger' s arriva l a t th e Eirean n Qua y passenge r transfe r facihty , th e ne w ferr

y wil l b e abl e t o dea l wit hth e loads . Th e situatio n wit hth e inboun ddeman di s simila r bu t wit hsevera l sever e peaks . Becaus e th e passenge r

load s a U arriv e a t

th e Islan dpassenge r

transfe r faciht y withi n 5-1 0 minute s o f th e aircraf t arrivin g a t

th e gate , th e deman dlevel s ca n b e sharpl y peaked . Exhibi t 1 2 illustrate s th e inboun darrival s i n 1 5 minut e segments . Th e ne w ferr

y wi U g o alon g way t o takin g pressur e of f wha t woul dotherwis e b e th e lowes t capacity poin t

i n th e system . Nonetheless , bot huppe r passenge r

dec k an dshutd e buse s o n th e car dec k wi U nee dt o b e use dt o mee t th e forecas t

demand s b y Octobe r

2010 . Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Toront o Cit yCentr e 1 4

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y Exhibi t 1 2 Inboun d(Arriving ) Passenger s i n 1 5 Minut e Segment s 201 0

25 0 Arrivin g Passenger s i n 1 5 minute s

, . • ."; ? .(J

> .- ^ . • .« ? .i > .- ^

. • . # .i > .4

> .N ^ .'sS » .«S > .- ^ .- ^ .<f .>S

' ."5 * A - % • % • o - ^«i - ^s - »K

- ^ - ^ - ^ v^ v^ ^ ^ ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ • Tim e o f Da

y Th e mode l calculate s th e passenger s tha t woul dno t

b e accommodate do n th e first ferr y departur e becaus e o f

capacity constraint s (assumin g tha t areasonabl e leve l o f

servic e i s t o b e maintained) . Th e mode l was ru n wit haferr y capacit y o f

15 0 (uppe r

dec k only ) an d20 0 (uppe r dec k plu s car deck) . Exhibit s 1 3 an d1 4 illustrat e th e inboun dpassenger s no t serve do n th e first ferr y wit honl y th e passenge r dec k i n us e an dwit h5 0 o r

mor e passenger s i n shutd e buse s o n th e ca r deck . Wit honl y th e uppe r

dec k use dfo r ai r passengers , i n th e mornin g inboun drush , som e passenger s will hav e t o wai t fo r aferr y becaus e o f

crowding . Ther e i s anee dt o implemen t th e movemen t

o f shutti e buse s o n th e ferr y a s soo n a s possible . Th e nee dt o kee p ahig hleve l o f servic e canno t

b e emphasize denough . Th e Airport' s busines s mode l i s workin g precisel y becaus e th e leve l o f servic e i s hig hi n term s o f trave l time , hassl e an dcongestion . I f thi s mode l i s allowe dt o brea k down , th e consequence s coul ddamag e th e viabiUt y o f th e entir e concept . Becaus e outboun dpassenger s arriv e i n les s "lumpy " pattern , th e sam e issue s d o no t exis t a t th e 201 0 traffi c levels , althoug hther e i s th e possibilit y i f onl y th e passenge r

dec k i s use dt o mov e passenger s tha t

ther e may b e som e passenger s tha t canno t boar don e ferr

y a t approximatel y 07:30 .

Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Toront o Cit yCentr e JT82100 0 1 5

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y

Exhibi t 1 3 Inboun dPassenger s No t Serve do n th e Firs t

Ferr y afte r

thei r Arriva l wit h15 0 Passenge r Capacit y - Uppe r

Dec k Onl y ( 2010 )

120 10 0

» 80 O ) 60 Passenger s no t Serve d o n Firs t Ferr y

I I I I—r-r-i—r - .•J > .« ? . ^ .- ^ . • .<f

> .(J > .-§ » . • <J

> . ^ .-^ . • .< ? . ^ .- ^ .•J > .<; ? .iJ * . 4 ^ • * • <b

- o, - ^

- »N

- ,^K

- ^

- ^

- ^ v ^ v ^

- ^

- ^

- ^

- ^

- ^

- ^

- ^

- ^ •

Tim e o f Da

y Exhibi t 1 4 Inboun dPassenger s No t Serve do n th e Firs t

Ferr y Afte r

thei r Arriva l wit h20 0 Passenge r Capacit y - Shuttl e Buse s o n th e Ca r Dec k ( 2010 ) Passenger s no t Serve d o n Firs t Ferr y 5 0 4 5 4 0 3 5 3 0 2 5 2 0 1 5 1 0 ;

, 

# 1 i 1 

# ^ 1 1 

# 1 1 1 .K * .^? > .(J > .'b' * . • .•($

> . ^ .4 ^ . • .«f

> . ^ .>§ > . • .(f > . ^

.<§ > .< ? .<S

> .>f » ." ? Tim e o f Da y A - « • <6

- <S - ^ - ,^< - ^N - ^ - <>>• • ^W - ^t. - ^ - .Ji - ^ - ^ - ^ - ^ - ,^ - ^ - .^•• '

Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Toront o Cit yCentr e 1 6

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y 

### Passenge rTransfe rFacilitie s Th e tw o ferr y passenge r transfe r facilitie s wer e eac hdesigne dt o cop e wit hapassenge r loa do f 9 0 passenger s a t

ahig hleve l o f

service . Wit hasingl e ferr y o n a1 5 minut e cycle , th e accumulatio n o f

passenger s i n th e facUitie s wil l excee dth e capacit y o f th e buildings . I n th e Eirean n Qua y facility , th e loadin g wil l decreas e th e leve l o f service , bu t

wi U b e workable . Th e Islan dfaciht y wil l se e apea k deman do f

a s man y a s 20 0 passengers , meanin g tha t th e termina l wil l b e congeste dwit hpassenger s backe du p int o th e corridor s t o th e ai r terminal . 

### Groun d Acces s an d Cur b Th e mai n component s o f th e groundsid e facHitie s (excludin g th e ferry ) are : Th e mai n acces s roa dEirean n Qua y (formerl y Bathurs t St.) ; Th e publi c parkin g facihties : Th e space s o n th e nort hsid e o f Wester n Channe l a t

th e foo t o f Eirean n Quay ; Th e space s i n th e "Stadium " parkin g lo t (o n th e wes t

sid e o f th e park) ; Th e space s adjacen t

t o th e ai r

termina l building ; Th e roadwa y i n fron t

o f th e passenge r

transfe r faciht y a t

th e sout hen do f

Eirean n Quay . Thi s i s referre dt o a s th e termina l frontag e roa d(TFR) ; Th e tax i holdin g area ; an d Th e shutti e bu s tha t

operate s betwee n th e Roya l Yor k Hote l an dth e passenge r transfe r faciht y a t th e foo t o f Eirean n Quay . Th e sectio n o f

Eirean n Qua y sout ho f Queen s Qua y Wes t

coul db e characterize da s amino r collecto r street . Nominally , ther e ar e tw o northboun dlane s whe n parkin g i s prohibite d(08:00

- 18:00) . Rigorou s channehzatio n i s no t presen t i n thi s sectio n o f

roadway . Whe n vehicle s ar e parke di n th e northboun dcur b lane , th e capacit y o f thi s roadwa y i s significanti y reduced . Th e capacit y o f

thi s sectio n o f

roadwa y i s estabhshe db y th e signa l timing a t th e intersectio n o f Eirean n Qua y an dQueen s Qua y West . Th e timin g o f thes e signal s i s unde r

th e jurisdictio n o f th e Cit y o f

Toronto . Ther e ar e 2 7 pubU c parkin g space s an d1 handicappe dparkin g spac e o n th e nort hsid e o f Wester n Channe l b y th e passenge r transfe r facihty . Ther e ar e 19 2 parkin g space s i n th e Stadiu mRoa dlot . Th e space s i n thi s lo t ar e share db y th e pubh c an db y employee s o f th e Airport . Th e lo t

ha s recend y bee n pave dan dmarked . Th e roadwa y i n fron t

o f th e passenge r

transfe r faciht y ha s tw o lanes . Durin g pea k period s vehicle s ar e stoppe di n bot ho f thes e lane s t o loa dan dunload . Approximatel y 2 0 meter s o f cur b lengt har e availabl e i n fron t o f th e facihty . Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Toront o Cit yCentr e 1 7 jnnoo o

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y

Th e tax i holdin g facihtie s consis t o f atw o lan e queue , 9 0 meter s i n length , an dthre e paralle l parkin g space s o n th e inboun droadwa y immediatel y upstrea mo f th e cur b i n fron t

o f th e passenge r

transfe r facihty . Ther e i s nomina l capacit y fo r 2 8 taxis , althoug ha s man y a s 3 4 ca n b e see n i n th e queue . Tabl e 4 compare s 201 0 forecas t deman dfo r

landsid e acces s facihtie s t o curren t capacity . Th e tax i holdin g area s ar e currenti y a t capacit y durin g th e pea k period s o f

demand . Th e termina l frontag e roa di s ver y congeste ddurin g pea k periods . Vehicle s ar e stoppe di n bot hlane s t o load s an dunload . Ther e i s limite dopportunit y t o provid e mor e capacit y fo r thi s facihty . Bot h parkin g an dtax i storag e ar e a t

capacit y now . Th e deman dfo r

acces s i s als o relate dt o th e patter n o f traffi c arrival . Th e larg e ferr y wi U dehve r passenger s t o th e Eirean n Qua y passenge r transfe r facUit y fro mth e Islan di n 150-20 0 perso n "lumps " puttin g heav y demand s o n th e tax i queu e an dtermina l curb . O n th e Island , th e parkin g are aadjacen t t o th e ai r

termina l buildin g ha s approximatel y 17 0 spaces . Th e surfac e i s asphal t pavemen t

an dth e individua l space s ar e wel l channehzed . Officially , bot hth e pubh c an demployee s ca n par k i n thi s area . Tabl e 4 Compariso n o f

Forecas t

Deman dfo r

Acces s Facilitie s t o Capacit y

201 0 Deman d Curren t Suppl y Pea k Hou r Passenger e (Inboun d & Outi)ound ) 98 0 Dail yArr/De p

Passengers 719 0 Cur b Lengt h Require d (Meters ) 2 Minut e Dwel l Tim e 38 9 0 Secon d

Dwel l Tim e

2 8 2 0 Tax i Holdin g

Require d (Vehicles ) 8 0

34 Publi cParkin g Deman d (Spaces ) 45 0 39 0 

### TP AOBJECTIVE S Whethe r th e slo t ca p i s controlle db y th e NE Fconstraint s o r othe r syste mcapacities , ther e wi U b e aslo t ca p tha t wi U hkel y b e 20 2 movement s pe r da y o r les s unles s an dunti l capacit y ca n b e improved . Slo t

an dschedul e managemen t require s arules-base dsyste mtha t i s fai r t o th e carrier s bein g scheduled . Generally , whe n w e discus s slo t management , w e ar e discussin g slot s wit h a n associate dtim e o r

timeframe. Th e slot s limite db y th e Tripartit e Agreemen t ar e o n adail y basis , bu t i n term s o f

carrie r need s an ddemand s an di n term s o f th e capacit y o f

othe r element s o f

th e system , the y wil l b e time-based . A s afoundatio n t o developin g slo t allocatio n rules , i t

i s valuabl e t o propos e objective s fo r th e Por t Authorit y i n managin g th e slots . I n genera l terms , th e Authorit y want s t o manag e a financially soun dairpor t creatin g maximu meconomi c valu e fo r th e GT A whil e respectin g th e Tripartit e Agreement . Wit hthi s fundamenta l statement , i t appear s tha t

th e Por t

Authority' s specifi c objective s i n managin g th e slot s a t th e airpor t

wi U be : Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Toront o Cit yCentr e 1 8

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y T o ensur e tha t

th e numbe r

o f slot s aUocate drespect s th e Tripartit e Agreement , an dt o tak e measure s t o adjus t

th e numbe r

o f slot s a s necessar y t o respec t th e Agreement ; T o ensur e tha t

th e tota l numbe r

o f slot s an dth e timing o f

th e slot s take s int o consideratio n th e leve l o f

servic e objective s o f

th e Authorit y an dth e capacity o f a U element s o f

th e airpor t —taxiways , aircraf

t parkin g stands , ai r

termina l facihties , ferry passenge r transfe r facihties , ferrie s an dgroun daccess ; T o ensur e tha t

th e slo t allocatio n metho di s logica l an dfai r t o users ; T o encourag e th e us e o f a U slot s b y th e quietes t

larg e turboprops ; T o encourag e th e us e o f a U slot s b y th e larges t

permitte dturbopro p aircraft ; T o encourag e th e us e o f slot s t o maximiz e passenge r choic e o f

destination s served , consisten t

wit hai r carrier' s commercia l need s fo r aminimu mnumbe r

o f dail y service s o n a route ; T o ensur e tha t

a U slot s allocate dar e linke dt o aircraf t stand s (ther e mus t

b e aplac e fo r

th e aircraf t t o b e serve dbefor e aslo t i s granted) ; T o ensur e tha t

a U larg e turbopro p aircraf t stand s ar e linke dt o apermanen t termina l facihty . Thi s objectiv e i s t o preven t arecurrenc e o f

th e "temporary " terminal s tha t wer e constructe di n th e pas t

an dt o ensur e tha t

carrier s servin g th e airpor t hav e alon g ter mpla n for , an dcommitmen t

to , us e o f

th e Airpor t

an dar e no t

usin g service s fo r

predator y pricin g agains t thos e wit hamor e substantia l investment ; T o serv e a

U transborde r

flights wit hasingl e pre-clearanc e are aan dasingl e CBS A area ; an d T o allocat e slot s o n atak e o r pay basi s s o tha t

revenue s ar e no t

foregon e throug hunuse d slots . 

## BBTC ARULE S FO R CAPACIT Y & SLO T MANAGEMEN T Th e Airpor t

ha s som e uniqu e aspect s tha t ma y no t exis t a t othe r airports :

• Slot s ar e bot hdail y constraine dand , durin g pea k periods , hourl y constrained ;

• Airpor t

operatin g cost s shoul db e born e b y a U carrier s pr o rat abase do n slot s aUocated , regardles s o f

whethe r o r no t used ; an d

• Th e Por t

Authorit y need s t o b e a n activ e participan t i n preventin g an y predator y behaviou r tha t materiaUy harm s th e Airport . Takin g thes e uniqu e requirement s int o consideration , th e commercia l carrie r operatin g agreement s nee dt o hav e Airpor t specifi c rules , including : Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Toront o Cit yCentr e 1 9 jTezioo o

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y

• Eac hcarrie r

shoul db e obhgate dt o sig n aCCOA . Th e CCO A shoul dsimila r i n all materia l respect s fo r

all carriers ;

• Th e specifi c overal l slo t ca p numbe r

canno t b e se t i n stone : th e slo t

ca p wU l b e estabhshe d fro mtime t o tim e b y th e TP A takin g int o consideratio n th e nois e ca p i n th e Tripartit e Agreemen t

an dothe r

capacity constraints ;

• A neutra l slo t

coordinato r

shoul db e appointed ;

• Slot s nee dt o b e allocate do n atim e basis ;

• Slot s nee dt o b e linke dt o gat e avaUabihty ;

• Apphcation s fo r

route s alread y serve dshoul db e give n lowe r priorit y tha n apphcation s fo r ne w routes ; an d

• Th e TP A need s t o b e abl e t o withdra w o r reduc e slot s t o compl y wit hth e Tripartit e Agreemen t

o r othe r capacity constraints . 

### SLO T COORDINATIO N Slo t management/coordinatio n wi U b e a n ongoin g rol e fo r acoordinator . I t

wil l b e th e coordinator' s responsibiht y t o coordinat e bot hth e tim e base dslot s an dth e tota l dail y slot s t o compl y wit hth e tota l slo t capabiht y estabhshe db y th e TP A fro mtim e t o time .

Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Toront o Cit yCentr e 2 0

# JACOB S

CONSULTANC Y 

### Nex t Step s fo rSlo t Coordinatio n Th e immediat e actio n require di n term s o f slo t coordinatio n is :

• T o determin e th e numbe r o f slot s tha t

ca n b e mad e availabl e fo r 201 0 takin g int o consideratio n th e schedule dservic e aircraf t typ e mix , th e curren t

leve l o f genera l aviatio n an dhehcopte r

operation s an dth e amoun t o f forecas t traffi c i n th e quie t

hours . Give n th e capacity constraint s i n term s o f Eirean n Quay , ferry passenge r transfe r facilities , etc . i t

i s recommende dtha t

th e slot s no t

excee d20 2 i n 201 0 an donl y b e se t a s hig ha s thi s i f

th e shutti e bu s operatio n i s enhance dt o reduc e congestio n o n Eirean n Qua y an di n th e ferry passenge r

transfe r facihties . • T o appoin t

aslo t coordinator ; an d

• T o incorporat e th e key akpor t specifi c element s o f

th e slo t coordinate dregim e i n th e CCOA .

Airpor t Capacit yan d Slo t Managemen t Toront o Cit yCentr e 2 1Exhibi t B Ai r Canad av. Toront

o Port Authorit y an dPorte r

Airline s Inc. , Dockets T-488-1 0 an dT-692-1 0 Reason s for

Judgmen t

an dJudgmen t

(Jul y 21 , 2010 )

### Federa l Cour t Cou T federat e Date : 2010072 1 Dockets : T-488-1 0

T-692-1 0 BETWEEN : AI RCANAD A

an d Applican t

TORONT O POR T AUTHORIT Y an dPORTE RAIRLINE S INC . CERHFICAH E O FJUDGMEN T Respondent s

I HEREB Y CERTIF Y tha t th e Cour t

(Hughe s J. ) o n Jul y 21 , 201 0 ordere dan d adjudge da t

th e en do f

hi s Reason s for

Judgmen t

an dJudgmen t

a s follows ; "FO RTH E REASON S PROVIDE D THI S COUR T ORDER S AJNO D ADJUDGE S that ; 1 . Thes e application s ar e dismissed ; an d 2 . Th e partie s ar e t o agre e a s t o cost s withi n areasonabl e time , failui g whic han y o f the mma y b y ashort

lette r appl y t o thi s Cour t fo r ail orde r an ddirection s i n tha t

respect. " yacquelin e Smith "

Registr y Officer CERTIFIE D A T TORONTO . Ontario , thi s 21 ^ da y o f .Jul y A.D . 2010 .Federa l Cour t Cou r federal e

Toronto , Ontario , Jid y 21,201 0 PRESENT : Th e Honourabl e Mr . Justic e Hughe s BETWEEN : AI RCANAD A

an d TORONT O POR T AUTHORIT Y an dPORTE RAIRLINE S INC . Date : 2010072 1 Dockets : T-488-1 0 T-692-1 0 Citation : 201 0 F C 77 4



### REASON S FO R JUDGMEN T AN D JUDGMEN T Applican t

Respondent s

[1 ] Thes e tw o a|^lication s hav e bee n brough t b y Ai r Canad aan dwer e hear dtogethe r o n commo n evidence . Bot hdeal wit hcertai n step s take n b y th e Responden t Toront o Por t

Authority i n respec t o f commercia l airport

operation s carrie dou t

a t th e Toront o Islan dAiiport , no w know n a s Bill y Bisho p Toront o City Airpor t Tli e othe r

Responden t

Porte r Airline s Inc . is , at

present , th e onl y commercia l passenge r

airlin e operatin g out

o f tha t aiiport .Page ; 2

[2 ] Fo r

th e reason s that

follow , I findtha t

th e application s ar e dismissed . I . Th e Application s 1 ) T-4S8-1 0 [3 ] Thi s implicatio n deals withwhat Ai r Canad acharacterize s a s adecisio n mad e b y Toront o Port Authority date dDecembe r 24,2009 , O n tha t

day , TP A release dabulleti n entitled : TP A announce s capacif

y assessmen t

result s fo r

Billy Bisho p Toront o Cit

y Airport , begin s acceptin g forma l carrie r proposal s That bulleti n read :

Third-party , lATA-accreditedslo t coordinato r

wil l b e appointe di n earl y 201 0 t o manag e carrie r deman dan dslo t

allocatio n proces s Toront o - The Toront o Por t Authority ("TP

A " ) toda y confirme dtha t i t ha s receive daprelimindr y executiv e summca y outlinin g th e result s o f a n update dnois e impac t

study an dcapacit y assessmen t fo r th e Bill y Bishop Toront o Cit

y Airpor t ("BBTCA ") . Th

e finding s o f

th e third-part y stud y wil l no w b e refine dt o determin e th e numbe r o f dail y commercia l flights an dequipmen t mix tha t ca n b e accommodate da t

th e airpor t

durin g th e comin g years . The comprehensiv e analysi s evaluate dal l he y factor s impactin g airpor t operations , including : th e 198 3 Tripartit e Agreemen t nois e guideline s hour s o f operatio n a t

th e BBTC

A an dth e impac t

o f earl y mornin g an dlat e evenin g flights o n th e neighbourin g communit y terminal , runwa y an dpassenge r ferr y infrastructur e limitation s th e availabilit y o f

parkin g an dtransportatio n option s t o an d fi'omEirean n Quay mix an dtype s o f

commercial , privat e an dleisur e aircraf t helicopte r an dMEDEVAC flights "Th e Bill y Bishop Toront o Cit y Airpor t i s a n attractiv e facilit y fo r passenger s an dcarrier s alike , " sai dMar k McQueen , Chairma n o f

### Page ; 3 th e TP A Boar do f

Directors , "Bu t

i t ha s bothamodes t

physica l footprin t an di s governe db y th e tripartit e Agreement , whic hserve s l o ca p th e rmmber

o f dail y commercia l flights tha t ca n operat e fro m th e BBTCA . Base dupo n th e ir^orma l request s w e 've receive dfi'om commercia l carriers , deman dfo r ne w slot s fa r

exceed s th e suppl y available . Thi s 'slo t

controlled ' situatio n i s n o different tha n othe r Nort hAmerica n airports , suc ha s Pearson , Vancouver , Newark Liberty , JFK , LaGuardia , o r Washingto n Reaga n Al l majo r airline s recogniz e tha t

a n airpor t

ca n onl y awar dth e slot s tha t exist , eve n i f tha t won' t satisf y every carrie r

request

—acircumstanc e tha t

exist s a t mos t slot-controlle dairports. " The third-part y stud y considere dcurren t BBTC A usag e b y leisur e aircraft s an dhelicopters , i n additio n t o th e approximat e 2,50 0 life

savin g MEDEVA C servic e operation s pe r annum . Th

e stud y als o considere dtha t

existin g BBTC

A commercia l carrie r

operation s wil l utiliz e approximatel y 12 0 slot s i n th e perio dleadin g t4 p t o Apri l 2010 , some o f

whic har e designate da s "Nigh t Operations . " Night Operation s ar e define da s service s operatin g betwee n 6:4 5 - 7 a.m . an d10-1 1 pm . Under

th e existin g Tripartit e Agreement , th e BBTC A i s close dto al l non-emergenc y flights betwee n 1 1 p.m . an d 6:4 5 am . "No w tha t w e hav e th e result s i n han dth e Toront o Airpor t Authority wil l initiat e th e nex t

phas e o f th e process , " sai dGeof

f Wilson , Presiden t an dCE O o f

th e TPA . "W

e wil l solici t

forma l busines s proposal s fo r

additiona l BBTC

A airlin e service , whil e ensurin g tha t th e proces s continue s t o remai n ope n an dtransparent. " Th e nex t phas e o f th e proces s wil l als o se e th e TP A appoir aa n independent , lATA-accreditedslo t co-ordinato r

t o manag e commercia l carrie r

deman da t

th e BBTC

A an dallocat e availabl e slots . The co-ordinato r

wil l ac t a s aneutra l part y durin g commercia l carrie r negotiation s an db e responsibl e fo r awardin g slot s base do n internationall y recognize dprocesses . Base do n th e initia l result s o f th e study , th e TP

A anticipate s tha t onc e phas e tw o o f

th e ne w BBTC

A termina l i s full y complete di n th e secon dhal f

o f 2010 , betwee n 4 2 an d9 2 additiona l commercia l slot s wil l b e availabl e fo r

awar db y th e lATA-accredite dslo t coordinato r fo r utilizatio n b y incumben t

an dne w commercia l carrier s unde r a numbe r o f variable s an dscenarios . Furthe r refinemen t

t o usag e pattern s b y existin g BBTC A stakeholder s i s currentl y underway t o determin e th e precis e numbe r o f slot s tha t coul db e awarde damon g th e incumben t

an dprospectiv e ne w carrier s The TP A expect s update ddat at o b e availabl e i n Januar y 2010 .Page : 4 "Ou r objectiv e i s t o increas e an ddiversif y th e numbe r

o f destination s service s b y th e airport, " acMedWilson . "Ther e ar e man y attractiv e shor t

hau l destination s tha t

ar e stil l no t

serve db y th e BBTC A an dw e ar e anxiou s t o continu e improvin g choic e an d convenienc e fo r

al l travellers . " The TP A wil l announc e aproces s t o receiv e an dconside r proposal s jro mprospectiv e commercia l carrier s earl y i n th e ne w year . Al l proposal s wil l b e expecte dt o outline : i ) propose dflight destinations ; ii ) servic e frequency ; Hi

) propose dequipment ; iv ) wha t arrangement s wil l specificall y b e mad e t o hancS e aproponent' s passenger s a t

th e BBTCA, an dv

) acommercia l carrier' s lon g term commitment

t o BBTC A passengers . A s i s customar y a t

man y airports , al l commercia l carrier s providin g servic e fromth e BBTC

A wil l b e require dt o ente r int o acommercia l carrie r operatin g agreemen t

("CCO A " ) wit

hth e TP A before the y ca n commenc e flight

operations . Commercia l carrier s mus t als o secur e appropriat e termina l spac e fromth e Cit y Centr e Termina l Corp , - BBTCA' s termina l operato r - whic hhi s th e exclusiv e righ t an dcontractua l obligatio n t o provid e al l commercia l carrier s wit h acces s t o it s ne w facilit y onc e th e constructio n projec t i s complete d i n 2010 . T

o date , th e TP

A understand s tha t

n o commercia l carrier s hav e responde dt o th e November 9 , 200 9 publi c cal l b y Cit y Centr e Termina l Corp . solicitin g proposal s t o utiliz e th e ne w BBTC A termina l

" I encourag e al l prospectiv e commercia l carrier s withadesir e t o fly int o th e BBTC

A in 201 0 t o tak e advantag e o f th e opportunity t o utiliz e th e ne w terminal , " sai dWilson . "I t i s unclea r

ho w an y commercia l carrie r

woul dexpec t

t o b e grante dslot s throug hthi s proces s withou t

aclea r pla n a s t o ho w the y inten dt o manag e passenge r

traffic , securit y screenin g an dborde r clearance . " Wit hth e rapi dincreas e i n monthl y traffi c an dth e numbe r ofne\ ^ carrier s seekin g acces s t o th e airport , th e BBTC A capacit y study als o identifie dth e nee dfo r

th e TP A t o make furthe r

cc^ita l expenditures . I n Januar y 2009 , th e TP

A Boar dmove dt o acquir e anew , large r ferr y t o accommodat e th e anticipate dpassenge r growththa t ultimatel y cam e t o pas s i n 2009 . "Despit e th e difficult

recession , Porter' s continue dpassenge r growth , combine dwit

hne w carrie r

proposals , mean s tha t

ou r tas k o f modernizin g th e BBTC

A i s no t ye t complete, " continue d Mr : McQueen . "Ove r

th e nea r termw e wil l b e lookin g a t wha tPage : 5 immediate step s w e nee dt o tak e t o ensur e tha t passenger s continu e t o enjoy th e succes s tha t

ha s become th e BBTCA. " [4 ] A cop y o f

thi s bulleti n was sen t

t o an officia

l o f Ai r Canad ab y an official o f

TP A o n Decembe r

24,2009 , unde r

cove r o f alette r whic hstated , i n part : Thank yo u fo r you r lette r date dDecembe r

23 , 200 9 an d Mr . Rovinesc u ' s lette r

l o Mr . Pau l date dDecembe r 18 , 2009 . Pleas e refe r

t o th e attache dBulleti n whic hwa s release dtoday an d describe s th e progres s o n ou r assessmen t

o f airpor t opacit y a s wel l a s outline s th e concept s fo r th e proces s whic hwil l b e use dt o asses s an dallocat e commercia l schedule dservic e capacity . I t woul db e prematur e a t

thi s time t o commen t

o n th e informatio n provide db y you , a s w e ar e preparin g aforma l proces s t o receiv e an dconside r

proposal s fromprospectiv e commercia l carrier s earl y i n th e ne w year . Wit hrespec t t o termina l arrangements , yo u wil l nee dt o contac t Cit y Centr e Termina l Corp . [5 ] Ai r

Canada , followin g receip t o f thi s lette r an dbulletin , filedth e first o f it s tw o application s for judicia l review , 1-488-10 . Th e basi s fo r th e appUcatio n wa s se t

ou t i n th e Notic e o f

Apphcatio n a s follows : Thi s i s a n applicatio n fo r judicia l revie w o f

th e Decembe r

24 , 200 9 decisio n (th e "Decision" ) o f th e Toront o Por t

Authority (th e "TP

A " ) announcin g aproces s (the "Propose dProcess" ) throug hwhic hi t intend s t o awar dslot s a t

th e Billy Bisho p Toront o City Airpor t (th e "IslandAirport" ) cojnmencin g i n 2010 . I n th e Decision , th e TP A announce dtha t

pursuan t t o th e Propose dProcess : (a ) i t wil l appoin t

a n independent . LATA-accredited , slo t coordinato r

t o manag e commercia l carrie r deman dan d allocat e slot s a t

th e Islan dAirport ; an d (b ) commercia l carrier s wil l b e require dt o make termina l arrangement s exclusivel y wit hCit y Centr e Termina l Corp . ("CCT C ") , acorporatio n relate dt o o r controlle db y on e o r mor e o f th e sam e individual s wh o ar e shareholders , director sPage : 6

o r officer s o f

Porte r Airline s Inc . ("Porter") , fo r termina l spac e a t th e Islan dAirport . Th e relie f requeste dwa s for : (a ) a n Orde r

settin g asid e th e Decisio n an dth e Propose d Proces s fo r

th e allocatio n o f

existin g an dnewl y availabl e additiona l slot s a s th e Islan dAirport ; (b ) a n Orde r

tha t th e TP A ac t withi n it s jurisdictio n pursuan t

t o th e Canad aMarin e Act . S.C . 1998 , c . 1 0 an di n accordanc e wit hth e commo n la w i n it s allocatio n o f slot s in (a ) above ; (c ) a n Orde r

enjoinin g th e TP

A fromtakin g an y step s t o implement

th e Propose dProcess ; (d ) cost s o f

thi s application ; an d (e ) suc hfarthe r

an dothe r

relie f a s t o thi s Honourabl e Cour t seem s just

Th e balanc e o f

th e Notic e o f

Applicatio n set s ou t

recital s o f

fact an dla w o f

th e typ e commonl y foun dmaStatemen t

o f Claim . 2 ) T-692-1 0 [6 ] Thi s i s th e secon do f Ai r Canada' s tw o applications . I t deals wit hwha t

Ai r Canad a characteiiiie s a s adecisio n mad e b y th e Toront o Port Authority date dApri l 9,2010 . O n tha t day , TPA release dabulleti n entitled :

Toront o Por t

Authorit y issue s forma t

Reques t fo r Proposal s fo r additiona l carrier s a t

Bill y Bisho p Toront o Cit y Airpor t

### Page : 7

Tha t bulletin rea

di n part : Appoint s world' s larges t

independen t

airpor t coordinatio n organizatio n t o revie w forma l busines s proposal s an doverse e slo t allocatio n fo r

additiona l airlin e servic e Toront o - The Toront o Por t Authority ("TP

A " ) today announce d tha t aforma l Reques t

fo r Proposal s ("RF P ")fo r

additiona l commercia l airlin e carrier s a t th e Billy Bisho p Toront o Cit y Airpor t ("BBTCA " ) ha s bee n issue dan di s no w availabl e t o intereste d qualifie dproponents . "A s th e BBTC

A evolve s into aworld-clas s cit y centr e airport , i t

ha s bee n ou r state dobjectiv e t o diversif y th e numbe r

o f destination s offere di n a n effor

t t o mee t th e demand s o f

ou r busines s an dleisur e travellers. " sai dGeof

f Wilson , Presiden t

an dCE O o f

th e TPA . "Th e issuanc e o f

th e forma l RF P i s th e nex t majo r phas e o f th e transparen t

proces s tha t

w e outline di n December . W e 'r e excite d abou t th e opportunitie s an dadditiona l airlin e service s tha t thi s RF P wil l generat e fo r

th e peopl e o f

Toronto , whic hfollow s th e parameter s stipulate dby th e Tripartit e Agreement. " Reques t fo r proposal s fo r

additiona l carrier s T o date , th e TP

A ha s receive dinformal expression s o f interes t from Ai r Canad a(whic hth e carrie r ha s publicl y disclosed ) an don e U.S.

- base dcommercia l carrier . The TP A invite s al l qualifie dindustry partie s intereste di n providin g carrie r service s a t

th e BBTC

A t o participat e i n th e RF P process . "A s th e RF P contain s commercially-sensitiv e information , an dgive n tha t relate dcour t

proceeding s recentl y initiate dagains t th e TP A by Ai r Canad aar e ongoing , ar^part y intereste di n receivin g th e RF P mus t first ente r int o astandar dcommercia l non-disclosur e agreement, " adde dMr . Wilson . "W e ar e committe dt o respectin g th e confidentialit

y o f al l partie s involved , an da s such , th e TP A wil l ente r into th e sam e for mo f

non-disclosur e agreemen t wit heac hintereste d part y t o protec t

proprietar y informatio n containe di n eac hne w proposal. " Comprehensiv e slo t

allocatio n proces s T o revie w th e forma l busines s proposal s receive dthroug hth e RF P process , th e TP

A als o announce dth e appointmen t o f Airpor t Coordinatio n Limite d("ACL") , a n independen t consultanc y firm specializin g i n deman dan dccpacit y assessmen t an dschedulin gPage : 8 proces s management , t o manag e commercia l carrie r deman dan d allocat e availabl e slot s fo r th e BBTCA . A s par t o f it s responsibilitie s a s a n independen t slo t coordinato r

fo r th e BBTCA, ACLwil l implement aslo t allocatio n methodolog y tha t i s simila r t o thos e use da t

othe r Nort hAmerica n airport s suc ha s Pearson , Vancouver , Newark Liberty , JFK , LaGuardi aan dReagan . Capacit y assessmen t

factor s Th e TP A als o confirme dtha t

i t ha s receive dth e final result s fromth e capacit y assessmen t

repor t fo r th e BBTC

A conducte dby athird

part y consultant , Jacob s Consultancy , a n USSl l billio n organizatio n tha t i s on e o f th e world' s larges t

provider s o f

technica l services . Th e study considere dtha t

existin g BBTC

A commercia l carrie r operation s wil l lailis e approximatel y 11 2 slot s i n th e perio dleadin g u p to th e pendin g allocatio n o f additiona l slots . Afte

r a n extensiv e analysi s tha t

evaluate dth e ke

y factor s ejectin g airpor t operations , Jacob s Consultanc y recommende dtha t th e maximumnumbe r

o f commercia l slot s availabl e a t th e BBTC

A i s 20 2 upo n th e completio n o f th e ne w terminal . Accordin g t o th e Jacob s Consultanc y analysis , whic hi s base dupo n th e 198 3 Tripartit e Agreemen t em dobligation s containe di n existin g agreement s wit

hincumbents , approximatel y 9 0 additiona l movement s pe r

da y wil l b e mad e availabl e fo r allocatio n by AC

L amon g th e existin g commercia l carrie r an dne w carrier s a t

th e BBTC A upo n th e successju l completio n o f th e ne w process . Th

e recen t acquisitio n o f

th e Maryli n Bel l I , a s wel l a s th e completio n o f th e ne w termina l facilities , make s possibl e th e increas e i n th e numbe r o f slot s availabl e fo r

allocation . Importantly , th e 20 2 slo t coun t i s predicate dupo n th e 19S 3 Tripartit e Agreemen t an dth e necessar y NE FContou r

analysis , a s i t

govern s facilit y usag e an d ambien t noise . Unde r

th e Tripartit e Agreement , commercia l an d recreationa l flights ar e not permitte da t

th e BBTC

A betwee n 1 1 p.m . an d6:4 5 a.m . Th e curren t an dearlie r

NE FContou r

analyse s heavil y weig hNight Operation s movements , whic hmeaningfully an dartificiall y lowere d slo t count s i n prio r

years . Under

th e NE FContou r

formula , asingle operatio n betwee n 10p.m . an d1 1 p.m . (define da s aNigh t Operation ) equate s t o approximatel y 1 6 Daytim e Operatio n slots . "W e ha dachoic e to make a s a n organization : provid e fo r 9 0 additiona l Daytim e movement s an dzer o Nigh t movements , o r 1 0 Daytim e movement s cmdjiv e Night movements, " adde dMarkPage : 9 McQueen , Chairma n o f

th e TP A Boar do f

Directors . A s th e tw o ne w airline s proponent s hav e requeste dmor e tha n 10 0 slot s betwee n them , w e ha dn o choic e but t o maximiz e th e numbe r

o f slot s available . W

e recogniz e tha t

thi s approac hdi dno t

produc e th e numbe r o f slot s sought , bu t

w e ar e governe db y th e airport' s limite d footprin t an dth e Tripartit e Agreement . Th e decisio n t o prohibi t additiona l commercia l Night Operation s wil l tg?holdou r curfe w polic y an dminimiz e an y impac t o n th e Waterfront

community. " Carbo n offse t

effort s T o furthe r mitigat e th e intac t

o f th e BBTCA' s operation s o n th e environmen t

an dit s neighbourin g communities , th e TP A wil l b e acquirin g carbo n offsets i n th e nea r term . [7j A cop y o f

thi s bulleti n was sen t

t o an ofBcia

l o f Ai r Canad ab y a n officia

l o f TP A o n Apri l 9,2010 , unde r

cove r o f alette r whic hstated : Furthe r t o ou r lette r date dDecembe r

24 , 2009 . an dyou r

lette r o f inquiry date dJanuar y 13 , 201 0 w e ar e attachin g aBulleti n whic h ha s bee n release dtoday an dannounce s th e Reques t fo r Proposal s ("RF P ") proces s t o conside r additiona l carrier s a t

th e BBTCA . A s th e RP Fcontain s commerciall y sensitiv e irformation , intereste d partie s wil l nee dt o first

ente r int o a.standar dcommercia l non disclosur e agreemen t

("NDA ") . A s th e TP

A i s committe dt o respectin g you r

busines s confidentiality , w e wil l als o ente r into th e sam e for mo f

NDA . A s yo u hav e expresse dinteres t i n providin g servic e a t

th e BBTCA, w e ar e enclosin g wit

hthi s lette r

th e Carrie r

ND A fo r you r perusa l an dexecutio n Onc e w e hav e receive dyou r execute dNDA, w e wil l forwar dth e RF P an dth e TPA' s execute dNDA . W e loo k forwar dt o you r

participatio n i n thi s process . [8 ] O n May 4 , 2010 , Ai r Canad afiledit s secon dapplicatio n for judicia l review , T-692-10 , th e basi s for whic hi s se t

out i n it s Notic e o f

Applicatio n a s follows : / . Thi s i s a n applicatio n fo r judicia l revie w in respec t o f th e Apri l 9 , 201 0 decisio n (th e "Apri l Decisio n ") o f th e Toront o

### Page ; 1 0 Por t Authority (th e "TP

A ") announcin g aReques t fo r Proposal s (th e "RF P Proces s " ) t o allocat e slot s an dotherwis e gran t acces s t o commercia l carrier s seekin g acces s t o th e Bill y Bishop Toront o Cit y Airpor t (th e "Islan dAirport") . 2 . The Apri l Decisio n purport s t o implemen t th e TPA' s decisio n regardin g aproces s (th e "Propose dProcess" ) fo r allocatio n o f

slot s an dacces s t o th e Bill y Bisho p Toront o Cit y Airpor t (th e "Islan dAirport" ) announce do n Decembe r 24 , 200 9 (th e "Decembe r

Decisio n ") . 3 . The Propose dProces s i s describe di n th e Applicant' s Notic e o f Applicatio n fo r

judicia l revie w o f

th e Decembe r Decisio n i n th e proceedin g bearin g Cour t Fil e T-488-1 0 (th e "DecemberApplication") . 4 . Th

e Apri l Decisio n o f

th e TPA : (a ) take s step s t o hav e th e TP A ente r int o acontractua l relation s t o awar dflight

slot s an dotherwis e gran t acces s t o th e Islan dAirpor t t o commercia l carrier s participatin g i n th e RF P Process ; (b ) enable s commercia l carrier s t o ente r int o non disclosur e agreement s fo r th e purpos e o f

concludin g acommercia l carrie r

operatin g agreemen t ("CCOA" ) wit

hth e TPA ; (c ) appoint s Airpor t

Coordinatio n Limite d("AC L" ) a s a n "independentslo t

coordinator " t o manag e commercia l carrie r

deman dan dallocat e slot s a t th e Islan dAirport ; (d ) permit s AC

L t o implement

aslo t allocatio n similar

t o tha t use da t "othe r NorthAmerica n airport s suc ha s Pearson , Vancouver , Newark Liberty , JFK , LaGuardi aan dReaga n " ; (e ) permit s th e TP

A t o receiv e expression s o f interest , includin g from aU.S.-base dcommercia l carrier , an d invite s partie s t o participat e i n th e RF P process .Page : 1 1

[9 ] Th e rehe f

claime db y Ai r

Canad ai n thi s secon dNotic e o f Applicatio n requested ; (a ) a n Orde r

settin g asid e th e Apri l Decisio n an dth e RF P Proces s fo r

th e allocatio n o f

existin g an dnewl y availabl e additiona l slot s a t

th e Islan dAirport ; (b ) a n Orde r

settin g asid e an y contractua l arrangement s tha t hav e bee n mad e pursuan t t o o r arisin g fromth e Apri l Decisio n o r

th e RF P Proces s including , inte r alia , suc h artangement s tha t

allocat e slot s o r

otherwis e gran t

acces s t o th e Islan dAirport ; (c ) a n Orde r

tha t th e TP A ac t withi n it sjurisdictio n pursuan t t o th e Canad aMarin e Act , S C 1998 , c . 1 0 an di n accordanc e wit hth e corrimon la w i n it s allocatio n o f slot s a t th e Islan d Airport ; (d ) a n Orde r

ergoinin g th e TP

A fromtakin g an y furthe r step s t o implemen t

th e Apri l Decisio n o r

th e RF P Process ; (e ) cost s o f

thi s application ; an d (f ) suc hfurthe r

an dothe r

relie f a s to thi s Honourabl e Cour t seem s just . [ 10 ] Unlik e th e firs t

Notic e o f

Applicatio n whic hset

ou t aStatemen t

o f Claim-lik e narrative , thi s secon dNotic e se t

ou t th e ground s fo

r th e apphcatio n briefl y a s foliovsrs :

TH E GROUND S FO RTH E APPLICATIO N ARE : 5 . AspartoftheDecembe r Application , counse l fo r

th e TP A mad e certai n representation s t o th e Cour t o n Marc h23-24 , 201 0 an d a t acas e managemen t

conferenc e o n Apri l 12 , 201 0 concernin g th e implementatio n o f

th e Propose dProces s whil e th e Decembe r Applicatio n wa s pending . As aresult . Ai r Canad aseek s t o en.%ur

e tha t th e implementatio n o f

tha t Propose d

judicia l review . 6 . Ai r

Canada , i n th e Decembe r Application , set s out

th e pound s fo r

it s applicatio n t o se t

asid e (mdenjoi n th e implementatio n o f

th e Decembe r

Decision .Page : 1 2 7 . Th

e Apri l Decisio n i n effect

implement s th e Propose d Proces s outline di n th e Decembe r Decision . 8 . Ai r

Canad arepeat s an drelie s o n th e sam e ground s se t ou t i n th e Decembe r

Applicatio n i n thi s notic e o f applicatio n challengin g th e Apri l Decision . [11 ] Althoug hth e Responden t Toront o Port

Authority wa s th e "decision-maker " i n th e matter s raise di n bothapplications . Porte r als o was name da s apatt y Responden t an dparticipate dfull

y i n thes e proceedings . 3 ) A t th e Hearin g

[12 ] h i oral argumen t

at th e hearin g o f

thes e applications , Counse l for Ai r Canada , Mr . Finkelstei n re-state dth e relie f claime db y hi s clien t

a s being : 1 . A declaratio n tha t

th e proces s followe db y th e Toront o Port Authorit y wa s fatall y flawed; 2 . Tta t

th e Apri l 201 0 Commercia l Carrie r Operatin g Agreemen t

(201 0 CCOA ) betwee n th e Toront o Port Authority , Porte r

andPorte r

Aviatio n Holding s Inc . b e se t aside ; 3 . That

th e proces s for

allocatio n o f

slot s at Bill y Bishop Toront o Cit

y Aiipor t b e commence dagai n i n a"proper " fashio n includin g consultation s wit hAi r Canada , H . Th e Parties . BBTCA . Slote an df AT A

[13 ] Th e Applicant , Ai r Canada , i s Canada' s larges t domesti c an dinternationa l airline . It ha s corporat e affiliatio n o f

on e kin do r

anothe r withJaz z Ai r

an dearlier . Ai r

Ontari o whic hare an dPage : 1 3

wer e smalle r

regional airline s operatin g i n Canad aan dt o som e exten t internationally . Ai r

Canad a presenti y serve s th e greate r Toront o are afromfacilitie s locate dat Pearso n Intemationa l Aiiport . Th e Responden t

Porte r Airlme s Inc . doe s not

hav e facilitie s at

Pearson . [ 14 ] Th e Responden t

Toront o Port

Authority (TPA ) describe s itsel f thi s wa y i n bulletin s that

i t ha s published , suc ha s th e bidleti n o f Apri l 9 , 2010 : Th e Toront o Por t

Authority wa s incorporate do n Jun e 8 . 199 9 a s a governmen t

busines s enterpris e unde r th e Canad aMarin e Ac t

a s th e successo r t o th e Toront o Harbou r

Commissioners . I t

i s afedera l publi c atdhorit y providin g transportation , distribution , storag e an d containe r service s t o businesses . Th e TP A own s an doperate s th e Billy Bisho p Toront o Cit

y Airport , Marin e Terminal s 5 1 an d52 , an d th e Oute r Harbou r Marina . Th

e TP A als o provide s regulator y control s an dpubli c work s service s t o enhanc e th e safet y an d efficienc y o f

marin e navigatio n an daviatio n i n th e por t an dharbou r o f Toronto . [15 ] Tli e Responden t

Porte r Airline s Inc . (Porter ) i s acommercial airlin e base da t Bill y Bisho p Toront o City Airport

(BBTCA) . I t

cam e int o existenc e throug hpredecessor s incltidin g thos e describe da s Regional Holding s (Regco ) beginnin g i n abou t 2002 . Porte r

ha s anumbe r

o f affiliate d entitie s includin g Porte r

Aviatio n Holding s Inc. , City Centr e Termina l Corp . an dother s al l dealin g i n on e wa y o r

anothe r withoperation s o f

tha t airlin e an da t

tha t airport . Th e Responden t

Porte r began commercia l airlin e operation s i n abou t 200 6 withtw o aircraf

t an dlimite dregiona l routes , an d no w ha s severa l mor e aircraf t operatin g route s t o man y place s i n Ontario, Quebec , th e Maritime s an dth e Unite dStates . [ 16 ] No t

aparty , but

central t o thes e proceedings , i s th e airpor t locate dat

th e wes t en do f Toront o Islan dproximat e th e downtow n cor e o f th e Cit y o f Toronto , Acces s i s provide db y aferr y operatin g

### Page : 1 4

i Q wha t i s known a s the Weste

mGap . Th e airpor t ha s operatedimde

r anumbe r o f name s including Toront o IslandAirport , Toront

o Cit y Centr e Airpor t andBill y Bishop Toront

o Cit y Airpor t (BBTCA)

- Th

e lan di s owne db y the Cit

y o f Toront o andleasedt o the Responden t Toront o Por t Authority . Ove

r th e years , thi s airpor

t ha s servedvariou s functions , including providing facilitie s fo r medica l emergency aircraf

t andfo r "genera l aviation " (GA) , whichi s ater mindicating smal

l privat e an dcharte r aircraft . Commercia

l passenge r airline activitie s have fix>mtim e t o tim e bee n carriedout using thi s aiipor

t b y Cit y Expres s (now defunct) , Ai r Ontario , Jaz z Ai

r and , mor e recently , Porter . [17 ] Anothe

r ter mtha t mus t b e discusseda

t the beginning i s "slot" . Sometime s th e wor d "movement " i s usedinstead . In commercia l aviation term s a"slot " i s usedt o designat e the provision fo

r the taking of

f or landing o f a n aircraf t - eac hi s a"slot" . In the contex

t o f thesis proceedings , ther

e ar e "quiet time" slot s whichar

e thos e occurring betwee

n 6:4 5 a.m, an d7:00 a.m . an d10:0 0 p.m . an d11:0 0 p.m . Als o usedi s the ter

m"pea k time " slot s whichindicate s thos e slot s assigneda t time s whe n passenge r traffic i s greatest , sucha s busines s travel i n the earl y morning an

d lat e afternoon . [ 18] lAT

A i s the acrony

mfo r the Intemationa

l Ai r Transpor t Association , founde

di n 1945 . I t i s a n association comprisedo f

airline s v^liic

h represen t ove r ninet y (90% ) percen

t o f th e world' s scheduledintemationa

l ai r traffic . Ai r Canadai s amember . Porte r i s not . N o airpor

t i s amember ; however , severa

l airports ca

n achieve astatu s wit

hlAT A called"aiitpor

t advisor** . BBTC

A i s not a n airpor t advisor . lAT

A publishe s guideline s whichar e not mandator y but ma y b e adoptedfo

r us e b y aiiport s for, amon

g othe r things , slot

management . Som

e airports , suc

ha s Pearson , hav e adoptedPage : 1 5

thes e guidelines . Othe r

airport s follo w the mt o som e degree . Amon g thes e guideline s ar e thos e respectin g slo t

management , wherei n aiiport s ar e designate da s Leve l 1 , Leve l 2 o r Leve l 3 . Leve l 1 essentiall y means tha t

slot s ar e manage do n aco-operativ e basis ; Leve l 3 mean s tha t deman dfo r slot s exceed s supply , an daslo t co-ordinato r

ha s bee n appointe dt o manag e slot s an dimpos e th e determination s mad e o n th e users . Movin g u p th e level s usuall y involve s som e consultatio n betwee n th e users , an do n occasio n thos e hopin g t o b e users , o f th e airport . in . Th e Evidenc e [19 ] Al l o f

th e partie s filedevidenc e i n thes e proceedings . Sinc e th e proceeding s wer e take n b y way o f apphcations , n o liv e witnesse s appeare dbefore th e Court . N o part y raise dan y seriou s isstj e a s t o th e credibility o f

an y witness , no r

doe s th e Cour

t mak e an y finding i n that

regard . Al l witnesse s are considere dt o b e credible . Eac hparty submitte dexpert evidence . Porte r

too k objectio n t o some o f

Ai r Canada' s evidence , whic hI wil l not e below . [20 ] Order s wer e issue di n eac ho f thes e application s t o th e effec t tha t som e o f th e evidenc e filed wovil db e seale dan dremai n confidential unles s an dunti l afiuthe r Orde r o f th e Court vra s mad e i n that respect . Th e hearing s wer e hel di n ope n Court . [21 ] I n particular , filedi n evidenc e was : A ) Fo r

th e Applican t

Ai r Canad a 1 . Affidavit s o f

Lesli e Alla n Lupo , swor n February 3,201 0 an dMay 14 , 201 0 togethe r wit hexhibit s a s identifie dtherei n (AppUcant' s Record , pp . 79-564) .Page : 1 6 H e wa s cross-examine do n Jun e 9,2010 , an dcertai n exhibit s identifie da t tha t tim e (Applicant' s Record , pp . 2757-2793) . Lup o i s Senio r Legal Counse l at

th e Intemationa l Ai r

Transport

Associatio n (lATA) . I t

i s unclear whethe r h e i s givin g evidenc e onl y a s t o th e practice s followe db y lAT A o r goin g beyon dtha t

t o spea k t o expertis e o n "internationa l standards. " T o th e exten t tha t hi s evidenc e goe s beyon dtha t o f lAT A I wil l giv e i t

htti e weigh t a s hi s expertis e beyon dLAT A wa s not established . Affldavit s o f

Gustav o Baumberge r

sworn February 5,201 0 an dAugus t 18 , 201 0 togethe r

wit hexhibit s a s identifie d(Applicant' s Record , pp . 565-822) . H e wa s cross-examine do n Jun e 15,2010 , an dan exhibi t identifie dat

that time (AppUcant' s Record , pp . 2906-2961) . Baumberge r i s Senio r Vice

Presiden t o f Compas s Lexicon , aconsultin g firmtha t specialize s i n th e applicatio n o f

economic s t o legal an dregulatory issues . N o objectio n was take n a s t o hi s expertise . Affidavit s o f

Marce l Forge t

sworn February 8,2010 , Ma y 19,201 0 an d Jun e 7,201 0 togethe r

withexhibit s a s identifie d(Applicant' s Record , pp . 823-1235) . H e was cross-examine do n Jun e 14,2010 , an da n exhibi t wa s identifie da

t that tim e (Applicant' s Record , pp . 2794-2905) . A writte n respons e t o an undertakin g was subsequenti y provide d(Applicant' s Record , pp . 2962-2969) . Forge t

i s Vic e Presiden t

o f Network Plannin g o f

Ai r Canada . H e wa s presente da s afeet witness . Porter' s Counse l raise d concern s tha t

som e o f Forget' s evidenc e di dnot com e fro mfirst-handPage : 1 7 knowledg e o r

wa s essentiall y argumen t o f Counsel . I wil l giv e thi s par t o f hi s evidenc e littl e weight . 4 . Affidavi t

o f Alai n Boudreau sworn February 8,201 0 togethe r withexhibit s a s identifie d(Applicant' s Record , pp . 1236-1389) , H e wa s cross-examine d o n Jun e 7,2010 , an dexhibit s wer e Identifie dat that tim e (Applicant' s Record , pp . 2521-2682) . A writte n respons e t o an undertakin g wa s produce d (Applicant' s Record , pp . 2962-2969) . Boudreau i s Senio r Directo r Ai r Canad aJet z an dSpecialty Product s for Ai r Canada . H e wa s presente da s a fac t witaess . Porter' s Counse l raise s a n objectio n that som e o f Boudreau' s evidenc e doe s not

aris e fi^m first-handknowledge . I wil l giv e thi s part o f hi s evidenc e litti e weight . 5 . Affidavit s o f

Ehz e LeGraw . sworn Marc h26,201 0 an dApri l 3 0,201 0 togethe r withexhibit s a s identifie d(AppHcant' s Record , pp . 1390-139 4 an d 2486-2520) . Ther e wa s n o cross-examination . LeGra w i s ala w clerk i n th e offic e o f th e Applicant' s solicitors . He r affidavit s serv e t o provid e catai n documents . 6 . Affidavi t

o f Jane t Jone s sworn Ma y 19,201 0 togethe r withexhibit s a s identifie d(Applicant' s Record , pp . 1395-2312) . Iher e wa s n o cross examination , Jone s i s ala w clerk i n th e offic e o f

th e Applicant' s solicitors . He r affidavi t serve s t o provid e certai n documents . B ) Fo r

th e Restx)ndent

TP A 1 . Certah i document s provide di n respons e t o th e Applicant' s reques t imder Rul e 31 8 (AppHcant' s Record , pp . 2314-2485) .Page : 1 8 2 . Affidavi t

o f Ala n J . Pau l swo mApri l 26,201 0 togethe r withexhibit s a s identifie d(TPA' s Record , pp . 1-1423) . H e wa s cross-examine do n Jxm e 8 , 2010 , an da n exhibi t

identifie dia

t tha t tim e (Applicant' s Record , pp . 2970

- 3135) . A writte n answe r

t o imdertaking s wa s provide d(Applicant' s Record , pp . 3233-3325) . Pau l i s Vice-Presiden t an dChie f

Financia l Office

r o f th e Toront o Por t

Authority (TPA) . H e was presente da s afac t witness . 3 . Affidavi t

o f Dr . Michae l Trethewa v swo mApri l 29,201 0 togethe r with exhibit s a s identifie d(TPA' s Record , pp . 1424-1648) . H e wa s cross examine do n Ma y 28,2010 , an da n exhibi t identifie da t

that tim e (AppUcant' s Record , pp . 3326-3369) . Tretiieway i s Executiv e Vice

Presiden t an dChie f

Economica l o f

InterVISTA S Consultin g Inc . wit h expertis e u i tnmsportatio n economics . Hi s evidenc e wa s presente da s tha t o f an expert . N o challeng e wa s mad e a s t o hi s expertise . 4 . Affidavit s o f

Geoffrey Wilso n swo mApri l 30,201 0 an dMay 27,201 0 togethe r wit hexhibit s a s identifie d(TPA' s Record , pp . 1649-2013) . Wilso n wa s cross-examine do n Jun e 11,201 0 an dawritte n answe r provide da s t o certai n imdertaking s (Applicant' s Record , pp . 3136-3325) . Wilso n i s th e Presiden t an dChie f

Executiv e Office

r o f th e Toront o Port

Authority ("IPA) . H e i s th e successo r

t o th e witaes s Paul . H e wa s presente da s afact witaess . C ) Fo r

th e Responden t

Porte r 1 , Affidavit s o f

Michae l Peluc e swo mApri l 29,201 0 an dMa y 26,2010 , togethe r withexhibit s a s identifie d(Porter' s Record , pp . 1-1313) . H e wa s cross-examiae do n Jun e 4,2010 , an dan exhibi t identified , subjec tPage : 1 9 t o objection , at

tha t time (Applicant' s Record , pp . 3370-3468) . A writte n answe r t o undertaking s wa s provide d(Porter' s Record , p . 1359) . Deluc e i s th e Executiv e Vice-Presiden t an dChie f

Commercia l Office

r o f th e Responden t

Porte r Airline s Inc . (Porter ) an dsevera l o f it s affiUat

e companies . H e was presente da s afac t witness . 2 , Affidavit s o f

Rope r War e swo mApri l 29 , 201 0 an dJun e 2,2010 , togethe r wit hexhibits , a s identifie d(Porter' s Record , pp , 1315-1356) . H e wa s cross examine do n Jun e 4,2010 , an da n exhibi t identifie dat

that time (AppUcant' s Record , pp . 3370-3502) . War e i s aPh D Professo r o f Economic s at

Queen' s University ; hi s expertis e focuse s o n Industria l Organization , mcludb g antitrus t economic s an dcompetitio n poUcy an dstrategi c behaviour . H e was retaine dt o critiqu e certai n o f th e expert

evidenc e submitte db y th e AppUcant . Hi s evidenc e wa s submitte da s expert evidence . N o objectio n wa s take n a s t o hi s expertise . rV ^ Th e Issue s [22 ] Ai r

Canad astate s th e issue s i n it s Factu msimpl y as : 1 , Ar e th e Decision s subjec t t o judicia l review ? 2 . Are th e Decision s invalid ?Page : 2 0

[23 ] Toront o Por t

Authority se t

ou t th e matter s that

i t submitte dwer e at

issu e mor e fully i n it s Factum : (a ) whethe r Ai r Canad amay rel y upo n th e grotmd s o f denia l o f procedura l fairnes s an d"fonna l an dsubstantiv e unreasonableness" , an dbreache s o f statutes , non e o f

whic h wer e enunciate di n th e Notices o f Application s fo r

Judicial Review ; (b ) whethe r

Ai r Canad aca

n properl y pursu e thes e judicia l revie w applications , give n tha t i t i s no t "directi y affected" , th e Court' s discretio n i n respec t o f suc hmatters , an dit s pas t history o f re-litigatin g th e sam e o r

simUa r claims ; (c ) whethe r

th e TPA , i n respec t

o f it s action s complaine do f i n thes e applications , i s afederal board , commissio n o r othe r tribuned , subjec t

t o judicia l review ; (d ) whether , i f

th e TPA' s action s complaine do f are subjec t

t o judicia l review , i t

wa s unde r

aduty t o consul t

Ai r Canada ; (e ) whethe r

th e Bulleti n o f

Decembe r

24,2009 , an dth e annoimcemen t

therei n withrespec t

t o th e fiiture proces s o f slo t aUocation , i s a

n orde r o r matte r capabl e o f

bein g judiciall y reviewed ; (f ) whethe r

Ai r Canad ai s out

o f time t o judiciall y revie w th e decisio n t o allocat e "grandfathered " slot s t o Porter ; (g ) whethe r

th e TPA' s action s complaine do f ma y b e reviewe d o n th e basi s of

f "formal an dsubstantiv e unreasonableness" ; an d (h ) whethe r

th e decision s at

issu e wer e mad e fo r

an irrelevan t

o r imprope r purpose . [24 ] Porte r

pu t th e issue s mor e simpl y i n it s Factum : (a ) Can Ai r

Canad aproperl y pursu e thes e judicia l revie w apphcations ? (b ) Has th e TP A breache dan y duty o f faimes s i t

may hav e owed ?Page : 2 1 (c ) Ar e th e impugne d"decisions " o f th e TP A reasonable ? (d ) Ha s th e TP A acte dwithan imprope r purpose ? [25 ] Som e issue s wer e not pursued , other s restate do r merged , an dne w issue s aros e durin g th e cours e o f oral argument . A s matter s hav e evolved , at th e en do f

th e hearing , th e followin g issue s emerge da s thos e tha t

I mtis t address : 1 . I n respec t

o f th e "decisions " at

issue , was th e Toix)nt

o Port Authority actin g a s a "federal board , commissio n o r other tribunal " s o a s t o b e subjec t t o judicia l revie w o f thos e decision s i n thi s Court ? 2 . I s Ai r

Canad aa"perso n interested " wh o ha s standin g t o seek jtidicia l revie w o f thos e "decisions " i n thi s Court ? 3 . Wer e tiie "decisions " o f Decembe r

24,200 9 an dApri l 9,201 0 o f akin dtha t

can b e th e subjec t

o f judicia l revie w i n thi s Court ? 4 . Has Ai r

Canad aproperl y pleade dsom e o f th e ground s tha t

i t no w urge s i n seekin g judicia l review ? 5 . Wa s ther e a n obUgatio n upo n th e Toront o Por t Authority t o consul t

withAi r Canad a before makin g th e "decisions " o f Decembe r

24,200 9 an dApri l 9,2010 ? 6 . Wer e th e "decisions " both"fomially " an d"substantively " reasonable ? 7 . Di dth e TP A hav e an y obligatio n t o provid e ''reasons " for it s decisions , an d i f reason s wer e provide dwer e the y adequate ? 8 . Wer e th e "decisions " mad e for a n imprope r

purpose ?Page : 2 2

V . Chronolog y o f

Event s [26 ] Th e history o f

event s involvin g th e Toront o Islan dAirport , th e City o f Toronto , th e partie s t o th e proceedings , thei r

predecessor s an daffiliate s an dother s i s length y an dcomplex . I t woul db e impractical t o se t

ou t ever y even t h i detail . I wil l enumerat e som e o f the mi n mor e o r

les s chronologica l order : 1 . Th e Toront o Islan dAiiport (whic hI wil l sometime s refer t o a s BBTCA ) was buil t

i n th e earl y 1930 s o n lan dlocate do n th e wes t en do f Toront o Island . Thi s lan dwas , an dcontinue s throughou t

t o be , owne db y th e City o f Toronto . Ferry servic e accessin g BBTC A fromth e mainlan dcommence di n 1964 . 2 , O n Jun e 30,1983 , a n agreemen t wa s entere dint o betwee n th e City o f Toronto , th e Toront o Harbou r

Commissioner s (predecessor s o f th e Responden t

Toront o Por t Authority ) an dth e Ministe r o f Transport

respectin g th e Toront o Islan dAirport . That agreemen t

i s usuall y referre dt o a s th e Tripartit e Agreement . That agreemen t

grante d t o th e Toront o Harbou r

Commissioner s ( predecesso r o f th e Toront o Port

Authority ) a50-year leas e for th e Islan dAirport

an drelate dfacihtie s subjec t t o anumbe r

o f teim s an dcondition s suc ha s th e paymen t o f rent . Amon g othe r

things , th e lesse e (Toront o Harbou r

Commissioners ) was obUgedt o regulate th e overal l fiequency o f aircraf t movemen t

s o a s t o respec t

certai n nois e restrictions. I f th e lesse e defaulte d an dth e defaul t

wa s not cure di n atimel y way , th e Ministe r o f Transport

was entitle d t o ste p i n an dru n th e airport , failin g whic hth e airpor t woul drevert

t o th e City o f Toronto .Page : 2 3

3

- h i tiie 1980s , commercia l airlin e servic e fix)mBBTC A was establishe dan d operatui g a s athrivin g servic e b y an entity know n a s Cit y Express , That entity wa s no t affiliate dwitho r

relate dt o an y o f

th e partie s t o thes e proceedings . Servic e was estabhshe dlinkin g BBTCA , Ottawa , Montreal , Newar k an delsewhere . 4 . I n 199 1 Cit

y Expres s cease dit s operations . 5 . I n abou t

1990 , Ai r

Ontario , an Ai r

Canad asubsidiary , ha dcommence doperation s firomBBTCA . Tha t

entity an danothe r

Ai r Canad aaffiliate , Jaz z continue d operation s at

BBTC A unti l 200 6 whe n a U operation s b y thos e entitie s ceased . Initially , thes e operation s wer e tliriving , servin g variou s destination s fi:omBBTCA ; however , ove r

th e year s th e numbe r

o f location s served , th e firequency o f flights an d car e an dattentio n pai dt o th e facilitie s diminishe dconsiderably . 6 . O n Jun e 11,1998 , Roya l Assen t vra s give n t o th e Canad aMarin e Act , S.C . 1998 , c . 10 . Tha t

Ac t repeate drepeale dearUe

r legislatio n respectin g navigatio n an d shippin g includin g th e Toront o Harbou r Commission s Ac t

1989,33-34-3 5 EH

z II , c . 10

- Th e Canad aMarin e Ac t mad e provisio n for

Letter s Paten t

t o b e issue dt o estabUs haport

authority (sectio n 8 ) whic hLetter s wer e no t t o b e considere dt o b e regulation s bu t

woul db e pubUshe di n th e Canad aGazett e (sub-sectio n 8(3)) . 7 . O n Jun e 8,1999 , Letter s Paten t becam e effectiv e establishin g th e Toront o Port Authority an dsettin g ou t

certai n activitie s t o b e carrie dout b y tha t authority . Thos e Letter s wer e publishe di n th e Canad aGazette , Part 1 , Jun e 5,1999 . Sectio n 7.2(j ) atithorize dth e TP A t o operat e th e BBTC A i n accordanc e withth e Tripartit e Agreement . A s o f Jim e 1999 , Ai r

Canada' s affiliate airlkie s wer e th e onl y commercia l airline s operatin g ou t o f tha t airport .Page ; 2 4

8 . Th e BBTC A wa s operathi g a t alos s whil e th e Ai r

Canad aaffiliate s wer e operatin g there . B y 2002 , thos e operation s ha ddiminishe dconsiderably . Th e TP A ha d continuin g discussion s withJaz z requestin g that i t commi t t o operation s at

th e aitport . I n th e meantime , th e TP A als o commence ddiscussion s withPorter' s predecessor s a s t o Porte r

estabhshin g airlin e service s firomBBTC A an drevitalizin g service s an dfacihtie s there . 9 . O n Jul y 18,2002 , th e Competitio n Bureau wrot e alette r t o th e TP A witi i acop y t o Transport Canad arespectin g proposal s mad e b y RA H ( aPorte r predecessor ) t o th e TP A a s t o commencin g ane w regional airlin e servic e fro mBBTC A (the n referre dt o a s TCCA) . That

lette r state dtha t

th e Bureau understoo dtha t RA H intende dt o ramp u p operation s significanti y ove r afour-yea

r perio dan dwas , amon g othe r things , seekin g an exclusiv e right t o 14 3 o f th e 16 7 slot s available . That lette r stated , i n part : I n relatio n t o th e RA H proposal , I woul dlik e t o mak e thre e points . First , Leste r

B . Pearso n Internationa l Airpor t ("Pearson" ) an dTCC A ar e clos e substitute s Jd r on e anothe r

fo r Cit y o f Toront o originatin g passenger s wit hth e sam e destinations . TCA A {sic } i s no t aTnarke t ont o itsel f

The fac t tha t on e carrie r

may dominat e service s o n aparticula r

servic e suc ha s Toronto-Ottaw afromTCA A [.«c ] i s onl y par t o f th e competitiv e analysis . On e woul dhav e t o conside r th e competitio n tha t

woul dexis t

fromccnrier s operatin g ou t o f Pearson . Fo r passenger s i n th e Greate r Toront o Are aan dsurroundin g areas , othe r airport s suc ha s Hamilto n an dButtortvill e woul dals o b e relevan t a s the y fal l withi n th e catchmen t are ao f Pearson . A C dominate s service s ou t o f th e Pearson , an dPearso n i s by fa r th e majo r airpor t servin g th e Cit

y o f Toronto an dsurroundin g areas . Consequently , eve n i f

acarrie r othe r tha n A C wer e t o provid e th e majorit y o f service s ou t

o f TCA A [sic] , thi s carrie r

i s unlikel y t o dominat e an y cit

y pai r servic e tha t

i s als o availabl e fromPearson . Second , a s agenera l rule , exclusivit y unde r th e Competitio n Ac t i s onl y problemati c wher e i t woul dlea dt o asubstantia l lessenin g o r preventio n o f

competition . Given th e existin g dominanc e o f AC .Page : 2 5 exclusivit y o f slot s a t TCA A [sic ] t o anothe r

carrie r i s unlikel y t o mee t thi s requirement . Third , a s amatte r

o f cor^petitio n policy , exclusivit y an d th e othe r restriction s containe di n th e RA H proposa l may not b e desirabl e o r

necessar y t o encot4rag e ne w competition . The rea l concer n o f

RA H i s tha t

A C wil l engag e i n predator y behaviou r by dramaticall y increasin g capacit y i n th e shor t termi n orde r

t o eliminat e RAH . I t

i s ou r view tha t thes e concern s coul db e addresse d by cappin g A C a t

it s curren t

slo t usag e o r allocatio n fo r

asufficient perio do f time t o se e i f

RA H ca n execute it s busines s plan . W e understan dtha t

A C wasitsin g 2 4 o f

it s 4 4 allocate dslot s up t o th e time o f th e publi c announcemen t o f RA H an dthe n move dt o usin g 3 8 slot s i n Ma y o f

thi s year . I t

woul dc^pecff-, therefore , tha t A C alread y ha s responde dt o som e degre e t o th e potentia l threa t o f ne w entry a t TCA A [sic ] b y increasin g service . Given thi s fact , combine dwit hit s existin g dominanc e a t Pearson , aca p o n A C a t

3 8 o r 4 4 slot s coul db e justifie da s a n interi mmeasur e t o se e i f

RA H o r othe r ne w entrant s coul db e foun d t o offe r servic e ou t

o f TCA A [sic] . W

e d o no t think tha t rout e exclusivit y o r chang e o f

gaug e restriction s ar e necessar y t o addres s th e concern s note dabove . I f th e Toront o Por t

Authority want s t o gran t RA H exclusivit

y o n al l o f

th e slot s no t

use db y AC , the n w e sugges t tha t specifi c milestone s b e pu t i n plac e in orde r

t o encourag e RA H t o implement

it s busines s pla n in atimely manner . 10 . O n Septembe r

6,2002 , th e TP A an dRA H ente r int o amemorandu mo f understandin g respecting establishmen t o f an RA H airlin e servic e at th e aiiport . A pres s release t o tha t

effec t was issue do n Octobe r

4,2002 . 11 . Th e Competitio n Bureau sen t alette r t o RA H (Regco ) date dFebruary 10,2003 , providin g acompetitio n assessmen t a s t o th e proposal s se t

ou t i n th e memorandu m o f understanding . That

letter stated , amon g othe r

things ; Th e Pr^ose dAgreemen t W e understan dtha t

Regiona l Airline s Holding s Inc . ("Regc o " ) an dth e Toronto Por t Authority ("TPA " ) entere dint o a Memorandu mo f

Understandin g ("MOU" ) o n Septembe r 6, 2002 .Page ; 2 6 The followin g i s ou r

understandin g o f

th e relevan t

fact s relate dt o th e MOU : • Al l restrictio n identifie di n th e MO U ar e limite di n time

fo r atotedperio do f

3 0 month s followin g completio n o f Perio d2 a s outline di n Schedul e A o f th e MO U an d define da s th e dat e o f

completio n o f

th e bridg e linkin g th e Toront o Cit

y Centr e Islan dan dth e mai n lan d ("th e Bridg e ") . Ou r

understandin g i s tha t

th e presen t targe t dat e fo r completio n o f

th e Bridg e i s Ma y 2004 .

• TP A shal l gran t

t o Regc o ari irrevocabl e optio n exercisabl e o n o r

before Februar y 28 , 200 3 t o acquir e fromth e TP

A th e exclusiv e righ t

t o utiliz e 11 5 larg e turbopro p dail y movement slot s (a s tha t

ter mi s define d in Schedul e A o f

th e MOU ) a t

th e TCC A o n a"take o r pay " basis .

• Regc o shal l commenc e operatin g aregiona l airlin e base da t th e Toront o Cit

y Centr e Airpor t

("TCC A " ) upo n completio n o f

th e Bridge .

• TP A shal l onl y make availabl e t o Ai r Canad aan dAi r Canad aAssociate s (a s define di n th e MOU ) betwee n 2 2 an d3 2 larg e tt4rb o pro p movement slots . TP A shal l onl y leas e t o Ai r

Canad ao r

Ai r Canad a Associate s spac e i n th e ne w termina l i f Ai r Canad ao r Ai r Canad aAssociate s canno t rene w thei r

existin g lease s a t thei r curren t location .

• TP A shal l limi t

A i r Canad aan dA i r

Canad aAssociate s t o destination s currentl y serve db y themcollectivel y from th e TCCA . TP A shal l hol di n reserv e 2 0 to 3 0 larg e turbo-pro p slots . TP A shal l no t

mak e availabl e O

r allocat e t o an y othe r carrie r an y o f th e 20-3 0 movement

slot s hel di n reserv e t o Ai r Canad aan dAi r

Canad aAssociates , o r

an y othe r carrie r t o enabl e suc hcarrier(s ) t o provid e servic e t o o r fromth e sam e destinatio n a s Regco . I n th e event

tha t before th e expiratio n o f

th e roll-ou t perio deithe r

th e TP A increase s th e movement slot s availabl e fo r

larg e turbo-pro p aircraf

t a t th e TCC A beyon d167 , o r

an y o f th e 22-3 2 larg e turbo-pro p slot s allocate do r

t o b e allocate dt o Ai r

Canad ao r

Ai r

### Page : 27 Canad aAssociate s become available , TP A shal l no t gran t suc hadditiona l slot s t o an y part y withou t first offerin g suc hmovement

slot s t o Regco . The slot s allocate dfo r

us e b y smal l turbo-pro p aircraft s ar e not restricte dfo r

route s no t

serve db y Regco . The Agreemen t

doe s not appea r t o affect th e TPA' s ability t o respon dt o demand s o f cross-borde r

carriers . Competitio n Assessmen t

Thi s matte r

was reviewe dunde r

section s 75 , 7 7 an d7 9 o f th e Competitio n Act . Relevan t Produc t Marke t The startin g poin t

i n assessin g Regco' s reques t i s t o defin e th e relevan t

marke t (produc t an dgeographi c market ) an d conside r th e prim afaci e evidenc e provide dby marke t shares , an d an y othe r factor s tlta t

migh t b e relevan t

fo r interpretin g th e Ac t I t i s ou r view tha t th e relevan t

produc t marke t effecte db y th e MO U i s th e provisio n o f airlin e services . I n term s o f

th e geographi c dimensio n o f th e market , ou r view i s tha t

th e relevan t

geographi c marke t

encompasse s th e provisio n o f

airlin e service s t o an dfromth e Greate r Toront o Area . I n thi s regard , w e conside r tha t TCC A an dPearso n dra w passenger s fromth e sam e catchmen t are aan dtha t

service s fromthes e tw o airport s compete wit

hon e another . W e understan dtha t

eac hairpor t

ha s certai n locationa l an dothe r advantage s tha t

ar e no t availabl e a t

th e othe r airport . Fo r example , becaus e o f

th e larg e scal e an dscop e o f Pearson' s facilities , i t

ca n handl e connectin g traffi c whil e TCA A [sic ] i s essentiall y servin g point-to-poin t passengers . However , i t

woul d appea r fromth e evidenc e tha t

w e hav e reviewe dtha t

eithe r ai r carrie r ca n provid e acompetitiv e servic e fo r passenger s travellin g t o o r fromth e Toront o area , includin g passenger s locate dclos e t o th e downtow n core .

Thi s wa s th e cas e i n th e 198 0 ' s whe n Cit y Expres s compete dwit

hAi r Canad ao n anumbe r

o f route s offere da t

bot h TCC A an dPearso n an dw e d o not se e an y reaso n wh

y th e situatio nPage : 2 8 woul db e different

i n today' s environment . W e als o not e th e surve y evidenc e tha t

ha s bee n don e whic hshow s tha t even wit hlimite d frequency an dn o significan t pric e difference s betwee n th e servic e availabl e a t

Pearso n an da t

TCA A [sic] , som e passenger s continu e t o us e ai r service s offere dfrombothairports . I t woul dappea r

t o u s ver y unlikel y tha t

eve n amonopolis t

carrie r a t TCA A [sic ] coul d exercis e marke t

powe r give n th e competin g alternative s o f flying t o Pearso n an dpossibl y othe r airport s (Hamilto n an dButtonville ) i n th e region . I n ligh t

o f th e proximity o f

th e tw o airport s an dth e evidenc e o f

substitutio n an dcompetitiv e interactio n frompreviou s periods , i t

i s ou r conclusio n tha t

ai r service s offere dfromeithe r Pearso n o r

TCC A ar e par t

o f th e sam e geographi c marke t Give n thi s definitio n o f

th e relevan t

market , i t

i s clea r tha t Regc o wil l no t

b e dominan t

i n term s o f

airlin e services . Section s 7 7 & 7 9

Thes e section s cppl y t o dominan t companie s exploitin g thei r marke t powe r i n away tha t

substantiall y lessen s o r

prevent s competitio n i n th e marketplace . Exclusiv e contract s whe n the y ar e entere dint o b y dominant

firms o r ar e widesprea di n th e marke t hav e th e potentia l t o impede entr y o f ne w competitors . Fo r

thi s t o b e a concern unde r

th e Competitio n Act , i t

woul db e necessar y t o sho w tha t Regc o i s amajo r

supplie r imde r sectio n 7 7 o r

t o sho w dominanc e unde r

sectio n 79 . Give n th e definitio n o f th e relevan t market , thi s i s no t

th e case . I t

woul dals o hav e t o b e show n tha t th e exclusiv e contrac t

wa s havin g th e effec

t o f preventin g o r

lessenin g competitio n substantiall y i n th e marke t Give n th e existin g dominanc e o f

Ai r Canada , limite dexclusivit y o f slot s a t TCC A t o ane w entran t

carrie r i s unlikel y t o mee t

thi s requiremen t Sectio n 7 5 On e o f

th e element s o f

th e refusa l t o suppl y provisio n tha t woul dnee dt o b e satisfie di n thi s cas e i s whethe r aperso n woul d b e substantiall y affecte do r preclude dfromcarryin g o hbusines s a s aresid t o f a n inability t o obtai n slots . The Burea u ha s note dtha t th e TCC A wil l make availabl e t o Ai r Canad abetwee n 2 2 t o 3 2 slots . W e als o not e tha t

fo r man y years , Ai r

Canad aha s onl y utilize d alimite dnumbe r

o f slot s a t th e TCCA . I n addition , base do n th e numbe r o f slot s availabl e t o Ai r

Canad aan dt o othe r

carrier s a t Pearson , i t

woul db e difficult

t o cwgu e tha t Ai r Canad ao r

anothe r carrie r ha s bee n substantiall y affecte do r preclude dfromcarryin g o n business , a s aresul t

o f th e arrangement s se t

out i n th e MOU .

### Page : 2 9 Conclusio n I n ligh t

o f th e above , i t

i s ou r opinio n tha t

th e proposa l a s se t ou t i n th e MO U woul dnot

contraven e th e provision s o f section s 75 , 7 7 an d7 9 o f

th e Act , an dtha t

th e Commissione r

wotd d no t hav e ground s fo r

causin g a n inquiry t o b e mad e pursuan t t o paragrap h10(l)(b ) o f

th e Act . Thi s opinio n i s predicate do n th e assumptio n tha t th e fact s ar e accurat e an dtha t n o materia l fact s hav e bee n omitte do r misrepresente di n you r

submission . Finally , thi s opinio n wil l continu e t o b e vali ds o lon g a s th e materia l fact s o n whic hi t wa s base dremai n unchange dan dth e conduc t o r practic e i s carrie dout a s propose dThi s opinio n wil l als o continu e t o b e vali dimles s ther e i s a n amendmen t

o f th e provision s o f

th e legislatio n upo n whic hi t i s based . Shoul dyo u b e uncertai n a s t o th e impac t o f an y amendmen t o n th e opinio n yo u hav e received , yo u shoul dsee k lega l advic e o r

re contac t th e Competitio n Bureau . O f course , shoul dther e b e achang e i n th e materia l fact s i n th e future , ou r opinio n woul dnee dt o b e revisited . 12 . Jaz z operation s a

t BBTC A dhninished . It s leas e expire di n Novembe r 200 4 an dJaz z continue dt o operat e o n amonth-to-monthbasis . B y th e en do f 2005 , Jaz z ha d cease dit s shuttl e bu s service s an dwa s usin g onl y abou t si x (6 ) slot s dail y at BBTCA . 13 . I n Febmar y 2006 , th e Commercia l Carrie r Operatin g Agreemen t

(CCOA) , unde r whic hJaz z ha dbee n operatin g a t BBTCA , cam e t o th e en do f it s term . TP A propose dane w CCO A t o Jaz z but i t was neve r

signed . Porte r

announce dth e launc h o f it s airlin e servic e fromBBTCA . Ai r Canad aannounce dplan s t o reinstat e it s service , an dmeanwhil e commence da n actio n in th e Ontari o Superio r Court agains t TP A claimin g extensiv e damages . Thi s actio n ha s sinc e bee n discontinued . Th e Jaz z montht o raonlhleas e ended .Page ; 3 0

14 . I n Marc h2006 , Jaz z filedan appUcatio n for judicia l revie w i n th e Federal Court , T

431-06 . Thi s applicatio n was converte dhit o an action . A secon dapplicatio n was filedb y Jaz z o n Augus t

8,2006 , T-1427-06 . Boti i proceeding s hav e sinc e bee n abandoned . 15 . O n Ma y 3,2005 , TP A an dPorte r (Regc o an dTCCA ) entere dint o aConunercia l Carrie r Agreemen t

(tii e 200 5 CCOA) . Tha t

agreemen t

stipulate dtha t

i t wa s subjec t t o th e Canad aMarin e Ac t an dth e Tripartit e Agreement . I t provide dfor

a n initial "ro U out " perio ddurin g whic hPorte r woul dreceive aguarantee dnumbe r o f slots , followin g whic hPorte r

woul dcontinu e t o b e entitle dt o thos e slot s o n a"us e i t o r los e it " basis . Porte r

was als o entitle dt o "participat e o n afair basis " i n respec t

o f an y additiona l slot s a s may becom e availabl e fix)mtun e t o time. 16 . I n Jul y 2006 , Ai r

Canad aannoimce dresumptio n o f it s service s fromBBTC A an d accepte dbookings . Suc hservice s wer e neve r resume dan dth e booking s wer e cancelled . I n Augus t

2006 , th e Competitio n Bureau announce dtha t whil e i t ha d concern s a s t o Ai r

Canada' s activities , the y ha dbee n resolve db y Ai r Canada' s undertakin g t o sto p suc hadvertisin g an dbooking . 17 . O n Octobe r

23,2006 , Porte r

launche dit s servic e fro mBBTC A withtw o aircraf t flying t o Ottawa , Sinc e that time, Porte r

ha s acquire dsevera l mor e aircraf t an dno w service s man y mor e destination s i n Canad aan di n th e Unite dSlates . B y 2008 , th e BBTC A ha dbecom e aprofitable . N o profi t wa s eve r mad e durin g th e perio dtha t an y o f City Express , Ai r

Ontari o o r

Jaz z wer e operatin g fiximtha t airport . 18 . I n 2008 , Jacob s Consultancy , afirmhavin g expertis e i n airport capacit y an dslo t movement , was retaine db y TP A t o provid e advic e an dreport o n capacity atPage ; 3 1 BBTC A havhi g regar dt o nois e limitation s impose db y tiie Tripartit e Agreemen t an d othe r constraints . A report

wa s mad e i n 200 8 whic hresultedamon g othe r thing s i n th e purchas e o f

ane w ferr

y i n 200 9 t o servic e th e airport . 19 . O n Septembe r

28,2009 , Ai r

Canad awrot e t o TP A expressin g an interes t i n commencin g servic e fromBBTC A earl y i n 2010 . Tfhi s was th e firs t

request sinc e Februar y 200 6 mad e b y Ai r Canad ao r

it s affiliate s for

slots . 20 . O n Octobe r

16,2009 , TP A release dapubUc bulleti n statm g tha t i t ha dreceive d enquirie s firomintereste dpartie s i n participatin g i n expande dservice s t o b e offere d at BBTCA . TP A indicate dtha t i t wa s i n th e proces s o f

receivin g advic e a s t o capacity havin g regardt o nois e restriction s impose db y th e Tripartit e Agreement . 21 . O n Octobe r

22,2009 , official s fixjmTP A an dAi r Canad ame t

t o discus s Ai r Canada' s wis ht o participat e i n th e expande dfacilitie s at BBTCA . Ai r

Canad awa s unclear a s t o th e typ e o f

aircraf t t o b e use do r

whethe r i t o r Jaz z woul db e th e propose dparticipant . A k

Canad aexpresse da n interes t i n 6 0 slots . TP A invite d Ai r Canad at o participat e onc e further advic e ha dbee n receivedrespectin g th e allocatio n process . 22 . h i Octobe r

2009 , TP A me t

wit hTransport

Canada , wh o recommendedtha t TP A contac t aslo t co-ordinato r

at Pearso n airport . I t

i s no t clear whe n tha t

perso n was contacte do r

wha t wa s discussed . It

appear s that

th e perso n i s aMr . Smith , an employe e o f

Ai r Canada . Ther e i s n o documen t recordin g thes e discussions . 23 . I n Novembe r

200 9 aPorte r

affiliate CCTC , whic hwa s buUdin g ne w termina l facilitie s at

BBTCA , announce dtha t i t woul dreceive enquirie s fromother s a s t o participatin g i n th e us e o f suc hfacilities .Page : 3 2

24 . Ai r

Canad arepresentative s me t wit hTP A official s Decembe r 17,2009 . O n Decembe r

18,2009 , Ai r

Canad awrot e alette r

t o TP A requestin g tha t

i t b e assigne d seventy-four

(74 ) slots . 25 . I n Decembe r

2009 , Jacob s Consultanc y provide dadraf t report t o TP A respecting availability o f

anumbe r o f additional slot s at

BBTC A havin g regardt o nois e an d othe r constraint s suc ha s th e feiry , ferr y terminal , parkin g an dothe r matters . Amon g th e proposal s mad e was tha t TP A conside r

th e appointmen t

o f aslo t co-ordinato r

t o manag e th e allocatio n o f

availabl e slot s at

BBTCA . 26 . O n Decembe r

24 , 2009 , TP A release dth e bulleti n withacop y t o Ai r Canad awhic h i s th e Sfubjec

t o f th e first judicia l review herein , T-488-10 . Th e substanc e o f thi s bulleti n ha s bee n se t

out i n detai l earUe

r i n thes e reasons 27 . I n January 201 0 Jacob s Consultin g provide dit s finalisedreport t o TPA ; i t

i s not identica l i n wordin g t o th e drafi : o f Decembe r

2009 . Th e recommendatio n tha t aslo t coordinato r

b e appointe dremained. 28 . January 7,2010 , Ai r Canad ame t

wit hTP A t o discus s Porter' s existin g slots , additiona l slot s an d^cihtie s a s th e Islan dAiiport . 29 . January 21,2010 , Ai r Canad acontacte dCCT C t o inquir e abou t spac e i n th e ne w termmal . CCT C responds January 25,2010 , invitin g fonna l discussion . Th e partie s me t February 5 , 2010 . 30 . I n February 2010 , TP A spok e t o aperso n at Londo n City Centr e Airport , London , England ; a n aiipor t

that for year s ha ddeal t

withslo t problem s withth e assistanc e o f acompan y caUedAirport Coordinatio n Limite d(ACL) . AC Lwas subsequenti y retaine dt o assis t

TP A withslo t

co-ordination . AC Lwa s lAT A accredited .Page ; 3 3

31 . O n Marc h22,2010 , AC Lprovide dareport t o TP A makin g anumbe r o f recommendation s a s t o th e managemen t o f slot s at BBTCA . 32 . Apri l 9 , 2010 , TP A release dth e bulleti n that i s th e subjec t

o f th e secon dapphcatio n for jtidicia l review , T-692'10 . Tha t bulleti n invite dformal proposal s from persons intereste di n acquirin g slot s at BBTCA . Th e detail s hav e bee n se t ou t earher . 33 . O n tiie sam e day , Apri l 9,2010 , Porte r an dth e TP A entere dint o ane w CCO A - th e 201 0 CCOA . Ai r

Canad awa s unawar e o f

thi s even t

a t th e time . 34 . Apri l 20,2010 , di e Commercial Carrie r Operatin g Agreemen t

o f 200 5 (200 5 CCOA ) betwee n Porte r

an dTP A expired . 35 . Ma y 4,2010 , th e secon dapplicatio n for judicia l review, T-692-10 , wa s filedb y Ai r Canada . 36 . Ai r

Canad arespondedt o TPA' s reques t for proposal s o n Ma y 14,201 0 stating , inte r alia , tha t i t accept s IPA' s mandate , objective s an dguidin g principle s a s identifie di n sectio n 1. 2 o f

TPA' s reques t

fo r proposals . Sectio n 1.2 i s to o length y t o repeat i n flill, but amon g othe r

things , state s tha t

aslo t co-ordinato r

ha s bee n appointe d(ACL ) to : "...allocat e slot s t o carrier s i n accordanc e wit hTPA' s slo t allocatio n methodolog y an dschedulin g guidelines. " [27 ] I hav e not

endeavoure dt o se t

ou t al l th e events , no r

se t ou t i n detai l wha t

wa s discusse do r written , a s th e cas e ma y be . I hav e endeavoure dt o highligh t majo r events .Page : 3 4

VI . Positio n o f

th e Partie s [28 ] Thes e application s wer e wel l presente dan dargue db y al l Counsel . I than k tiiemfor thei r courtes y an dprofessionalis mthroughou t Al l Counse l argue dforcefull y an dwel l o n behal f o f thei r respectiv e clients . A s aresult , man y different point s hav e bee n raise dfor resolution. Fiisl , however , I wil l presen t

a n overvie w o f

th e positio n o f

eac hparty . [29 ] Ai r

Canad ai s th e AppUcant . I t want s th e TP A t o und o it s slo t allocatio n proces s an dstart fromscratch , i n consultatio n wit hAi r Canada . I t

want s th e 201 0 Commercia l Carrie r Operatin g Agreement , a s signe dwit hPorter , se t aside , an dtha t

thos e parties , i n th e meantime , abid e b y th e term s o f th e 200 5 CCOA . Ai r

Canad ai s aware o f

th e fac t tiiat i t i s no t wel l like db y Porte r

an d possibl y tiie TPA ; however , it s Counse l argue s tha t th e application s ar e no t

abou t Ai r Canada , the y ar e abou t th e TP A an dth e decision s that i t ha s made . I t

i s abou t wha t Ai r Canad acharacterize s a s th e TPA' s failure t o follo w du e proces s i n allowin g fiill participatio n b y everyone , not jus t TPA' s favourite partner , Porter , i n th e "licensing " o f slot s at th e airport . Ai r

Canada' s Counse l argue s that th e TP A i s actin g a s afederal board , commissio n o r othe r tribuna l i n thi s capacity , an di s i n tha t capacity subjec t

t o th e judicia l revie w proces s o f thi s Court . [30 ] TP A argue s tha t

i t i s i n respec t

o f it s operation s at

BBTC A actin g a s acommercial entity , an di s no t subjec t t o judicia l revie w b y thi s Court i n tha t regard . I t argue s tha t

th e "decisions " unde r revie w are not

"decisions" , but

announcement s an darequest for proposals , an dtha t

Ai r Canad ai s no t a"perso n interested " therefor e lack s standin g t o seek judicia l review . TP A argue s tha t i t ha s fiequentiy consulte dwithAi r Canad aconcernin g th e aiiport . TP A shoul db e fi^e t o mak e th e

### Page : 3 5

norma l busines s decision s tha

t an y ordinar y busines s corporat

e entit y wouldmak

e wit hinterferenc e by wa y o f judicial review. [31 1 Porte

r argue s tha t it i s the rea l targe t of Ai r Canada' s lega

l activities . It

argue s tha t Air Canadaan dit s affiliate s lef

t the islandaiipor

t t o deteriorate , preferring t o operat e fromPearson airport ; an donl y whe n Porter , who wa s assuming al l the risk, mad

e th e islandahpor

t viable , didAi

r Canadawis ht o muscle it s wa y back in by whateve

r means . Ai

r Canadashouldnot

complai n abou t Porter' s dominanc e a

t BBTCA , sinc e Ai

r Canadai s th e dominan

t airline a t Pearson an

dmost othe r commercia

l airport s i n Canada . [32] Wha

t th e Cour t mus t kee p i n min di s tha t wha t i s befor e i t ar e tw o discret

e application s repeating certain "decisions " mad e by th e TP

A andprocesse s followe

dby i t respecting thos e "decisions" . I

n orde r t o dea l wit hthos e discret

e matters , th e Cour

t mus t addres s anumbe

r o f issue s raisedby the parties . VI I Issu e #1 : I s th e Toront o Por t Authority a"federal board s cororoission o r othe r tribunal " s o a s t o b e subjec t

t o mdicial review ? [33 ] Section s 1 8 an

d18. 1 o f tiie Federal Court s Act, R.S.C . 1985 , c . F- 7 giv e tiie Federa l Cour t jurisdictio n to issue a

n injunctio n an dothe r form s o f prerogativ e relief

an dt o judicially review an

d provid e remedie s i

n respect of adecision o

r orde r o f a"federa l board , commission o

r othe r tribunal" .Page : 3 6

[34 ] Th e Toront o Port

Authority (TPA ) wa s continue da s asuccesso r t o th e Toront o Harbou r Commissioner s unde r

th e provision s o f

th e Canad aMarin e Act , an di n particular , subsectio n 12(1 ) an dPart I o f th e Schedul e o f

tha t ^c^ . Letter s Paten t

wer e issue dt o th e TP A effectiv e Jun e 8,1999 . Th e purpos e o f

th e Canad aMarin e Ac t

i s se t ou t i n sectio n 4 , subsection s (a ) t o (h) ; 4 , I n recognitio n o f

th e significanc e o f

marin e transportatio n t o Canad aan d it s contributio n t o th e Canadia n economy , th e purpos e o f

thi s Ac t i s t o (a ) implemen t

marin e policie s tha t provid e Canad awit

hth e marin e infrastructur e tha t i t need s an dtha t

offe r effective suppor t fo r th e achievemen t

o f national , regiona l an dloca l socia l an deconomi c objective s an dwil l promot e an dsafeguar d Canada' s competitivenes s an d trad e objectives ; ( a1 ) promot e th e succes s o f port s fo r th e purpos e o f contributin g t o th e competitiveness , growthan d prosperit y o f

th e Canadia n economy ; (b ) bas e th e marin e infrastructur e an dservice s o n internationa l practice s an d approache s tha t

ar e consisten t wit hthos e o f Canada' s majo r tradin g partner s in orde r

t o foste r harmonizatio n o f standard s amon g

jurisdictions ; (c ) ensur e tha t

marin e transportatio n service s ar e organize dt o satisf

y th e need s o f user s an dar e availabl e a t a reasonc^l e cos t

t o th e users ; 4 . Compte ten u d e

I'importanc e d u transpor t maritim e au Canad ae t

d e s a contributio n b . 1 'economi e canadierme , lapresent e lo i a pou r obje t de : a ) mettr e e n oeuvr e un e politiqu e maritim e quipermett e a u Canad ad e s e dote r

d e I 'infrastructur e maritim e don t i l ahesoin , qu i l e .soutienne efflcacement

dan s l arealisatio n d e se s objectif

s socioeconomique s nationaux , regionau x e t

locau x auss i bie n qu e commerciaux , e t

I 'aid e a promouvoi r

e t preserve r s a compititivite ; a . 1 ) promouvoi r

l avitaUt e de s port s dan s l e bu t

d e contribue r d . l acompititiviti , l acroissanc e e t laprosperit e economiqu e d u Canada ; b ) fonde r I'infrastructur e maritim e e t

le s service s su r

de s pratique s Internationale s e t de s approche s compatible s ave c celle s d e se s principau x partenaire s commerciau x dan s l e but d e promouvoi r I'harmonisatio n de s norme s q u 'appliquen t

le s diffirente s autoritds ; c ) veille r dc e qu e le s service s d e transpor t

maritim e soien tPage : 3 7 (d ) provid e fo r

ahig hleve l o f safety an denvironmenta l protection ; (e ) provid e ahig hdegre e o f autonomy fo r

loca l o r regiona l maruzgemen

t o f component s o f th e syste mo f

service s an d facilitie s an db e responsiv e t o loca l need s an dpriorities ; (f ) manag e th e marin e infrastructur e an dservice s i n a commercia l manne r

tha t encourages , an dtake s into account , inpu t

fromuser s an d th e communit

y i n whic hapor t o r harbou r i s located ; (g ) provid e fo r

th e disposition , by transfe r

o r otherwise , o f certai n port s an dpor t

facilities ; an d

(h ) promot e coordinatio n an d integratio n o f

marin e activitie s wit hsurfac e an dai r transportatio n systems . organise s defago n asatisfair e le s besoin s de s utilisateur s e t le w soien t

offert s au n coii t raisonnable ; djfourni r un niveau elev e d e sicurit e e t

d e protectio n d e I'environnement ; e ) offrir un niveau ilev i d'autonomi c au x administration s locale s o u rigionale s de s composante s d u resea u de s service s e t installation s portuaire s e t prendr e e n compte lesprioriti s e t le s besoin s locaux ; f ) gire r 1 'infrastructur e maritim e e t

le s service s d'un e faqo n commercial e quifavoris e etpren de n compte 1 'appor t de s utilisateur s e t

d e l acollectivit i oi i unpor t

o u havr e es t

sitae ; g ) prevoi r l acession , notammentpa r

voi e d e transfert , d e certain s port s e t installation s portuaires ; hjfavorise r

l acoordinatio n e t I'integratio n de s activitd s maritime s ave c le s riseau x d e transpor t airie n e t terrestre . [35 ] Sectio n 5 o f

th e Ac t define s anumbe r

o f term s includin g "ahport " an d"user" : 5 , Th e definition s i n thi s sectio n appl y i n thi s Part . "airport " « a^roport

» "airport " mean s a n airpor t situate di n apart .Page ; 3 8 "letter s patent " «lettre s patcnte s » "letter s patent " mean s letter s paten t a s amende db y supplementar y letter s patent , i f

any . "port " <'<port » "port " mean s th e navigabl e water s unde r th e jurisdictio n o f

apor t authorit y an dth e rea l propert y an dimmovable s tha t th e por t authorit y manages , hold s o r occupie s a s se t

ou t i n th e letter s paten t "user " « utilisateu r

» "user" , i n respec t

o f aport , mean s aperso n tha t make s commercia l us e of

, o r provide s service s at , th e port . [36 ] Sectio n 2 define s "port authority" : "por t authority " « adntinistiatio n portuair e » "por t authority " mean s apor t authorit y incorporate do r continue d unde r thi s Act . [37 ] Sectio n 7 o f

th e Ac t speciSe s wher e apor t

authority i s o r

i s not a n agen t o f th e Crown : 7 . (1 ) Subjec t

t o subsectio n (3) , apor t

authorit y i s a n agen t

o f He r Majest y i n righ t o f Canad aonl y fo r

th e purpose s o f

engagin g i n th e por t activitie s referre dt o i n paragrap h28(2)(a.) . No t a n asen t o f He r Majesty (2 ) A wholly-owne dsubsidiar y o f apor t authorit y i s no t

a n agen t o f He r Majesty i n righ t

o f Canad aunless , subjec t

t o subsectio n (3) , < V i t wa s a n agen t

o f He r Majest y i n righ t o f Canad ao n Jun e 10 , 1996 ; an d

### Page : 3 9 (b ) i t i s a n agen t

o f He r Majesty i n righ t

o f Canad aunde r

a n enactmen t

othe r tha n thi s Act . Borrowin g restrictio n (3 ) A por t authorit y o r

awholly-owne dsubsidiar y o f apor t authorit y may no t

borro w mone y a s a n agen t o f He r Majesty i n righ t o f Canada . [38 ] Subsectio n 28(1 ) o f th e Ac t provide s that , inte r

alia , th e TP A ha s th e power s o f anatura l person : 28 . (1 ) A por t authorit y i s incorporate dfo r th e purpos e o f

operatin g th e por t i n respec t

o f whic hit s letter s paten t

ar e issue dan dfo r

tha t purpos e aruifo r

th e purpose s o f

thi s Act , ha s th e power s o f anatura l person . [39 ] Sub-sectio n 28(2)(a ) o f th e Ac t i s th e provisio n referre dt o i n sectio n 7 o f th e Ac t unde r whic ha n entity lik e tiie TP A woul db e actin g a s an agen t o f th e Crown . Sub-sectio n 28(2)(b ) i s directe dt o activitie s i n respec t o f whic hi t i s not aCrow n agent : (2 ) Th e powe r

o f apor t authorit y t o operat e apor t i s limite dt o th e powe r t o engag e i n (•& ) por t activitie s relate dt o shippin g ru;tvigation , transportatio n o f passenger s an dgoods , handlin g o f good s an dstorag e o f

goods , t o th e exten t tha t thos e activitie s ar e specifie di n th e letter s patent ; an d (h ) othe r activitie s tha t

ar e deeme di n th e letter s paten t t o b e necessar y t o suppor t

por t operations . [40 ] Sectio n 2 9 o f

th e Ac t i s directe dt o railway s an dairports . Sub-sectio n 29(3 ) specificall y deal s withairports :

(3 ) Subjec t

t o it s letter s patent , t o an y othe r Act , t o an y regulation s mad e unde r

art y othe r Ac t an dt o an y agreemen t

wit hth e Governmen t

o f Canad atha t

provide s otherwise , apor t authorit y tha t operate s a n airpor t

shal l d o s o a t

it s ow n expense .Page : 4 0

[41 ] Th e Letter s Paten t issue dt o IP A pursuan t

t o tfie Canad aMarin e Ac t purport t o separat e th e power s exercise db y th e TP A unde r paragrap h28(2)(a ) o f

tha t ^c r (Crow n agent ) i n sectio n 7. 1 o f th e Letter s Paten t

fixim tiiose exercise dunde r paragrap h28(2)(b ) (non-Crow n agent ) i n sectio n 7. 2 o f th e Letter s Patent . [42 ] Sectio n 7. 1 o f

th e Letter s Patent , subsection s (c) , (e ) an d(p ) state : 7. 1 Activitie s o f

th e Authority Relate dt o Certai n Por t Operations . T

o operat e th e port , th e Authority may undertak e th e por t

activitie s referre dt o inparagngy h 28(2)(a ) o f

th e Ac t t o th e exten t specifie dbelow : (c ) management , leasin g o r licensin g th e federa l rea l propert y describe di n Schedul e B o r describe da s federa l rea l propert y i n an y supplementary letter s patent , subjec t

t o th e restriction s contemplate di n section s 8. 1 an d8. 3 an d provide dsuc hmanagement , leasin g o r licensin g i s for , o r i n connectio n wit hth e following : (i ) thos e activitie s describe di n section s 7. 1 an d7.2 ; (ii ) thos e activitie s describe di n sectio n 7. 3 provide dsuc h activitie s ar e carrie do n by Subsidiarie s o r

othe r thir d partie s pursuan t

t o leasin g o r licensin g arrangements ; (Hi ) tlw followin g use s t o th e exten t suc huse s ar e no t 7. 1 Activiti s d e I 'Administratio n Hie s a certaine s operation s portuaires . Pou r

exploite r l e port , I'Administrationpeu t s e livre r au x activiti s portuaire s mentionnee s aI'aline a28(2)a ) d e l aLo i dan s l amesur e precise e ci-dessous : c ) sou s reserv e de s restriction s privue s au x paragraphe s 8. 1 et8.3 , gestion , locatio n o u octro i depermi s relativemen t

au x immeuble s fiderau x decrit s a1 'Annex e « B » O u dan s de s lettre s patente s supplememaire s comme dtan t

de s immeuble s fid&raux , aconditio n qu e l agestion , l alocatio n o u I'octro i depermi s vis e c e qu i suit : (i ) le s activiti s decrite s au x paragraphe s 7. 1 e t

7.2 ; (ii ) le s activiti s decrite s au paragraph e 7.3pourv u q u 'elle s soien t

meniespa r

de s Filiale s o u de s tierces partie s conformement

au x arrangement s d e locatio n o u d'octro i depermis ;

### Page : 4 1 describe da s activitie s in sectio n 7.1 , 7. 2 o r

7.3 : (A ) use s relate dt o shipping , navigation , transportatio n o f passenger s an dgoods , handlin g o f

good s an dstorag e o f goods ; (B ) provisio n o f

municipa l service s o r

facilitie s i n connectio n wit

hsuc hfedera l rea l property ; (C ) use s not

otherwis e withi n subparagrap h7.1(c)(iii)(A) , (B ) o r (D ) tha t ar e describe d i n si^plementar y letter s paten t (D ) governmen t

sponsore d economi c developmen t initiative s approve db y Treasury Board ; provide dsuc h use s ar e carrie do n b y thir d parties . Other

tha n Subsidiaries , pursuan t

t o leasin g o r

licensin g arrangements ; (e ) grantin g in respec t

o f federa l rea l propert y describe d i n Schedul e B o r

describe da s federa l rea l propert y i n art y supplementary letter s patent , roa dallowance s o r

easements , right s o f way o r licence s fo r utilities , servic e o r

access ; (p ) carryin g o n activitie s describe di n sectio n 7. 1 o n rea l propert y othe r

tha n federa l rea l propert y describe di n Schedul e Co r

describe da s rea l propert y othe r

tha n federa l rea l propert y in an y supplementary letter s patent ; (Hi ) le s utilisation s suivante s dan s l amesur e o u elle s nefigurentpa s dan s le s activiti s dicrite s au x paragraphe s 7.1 , 7. 2 o u 7.3 : (A ) utilisation s Hie s al a navigation , a u transpor t despassager s e t

de s marchandise s e t

al a manutentio n eth l 'entreposag e de s marchandises ; (B ) prestatio n d e service s o u d'installation s municipau x relativemen t

ace s immeuble s fediraux ; (C ) utilisation s qu i n e sontpa s prevue s au x division s 7.1c)Ctii)(A) , (B ) o u (D ) mai s qu i son t decrite s dan s de s lettre s patente s supplimentaires ; (D)projet s d e diveloppemen t iconomigu e imanan t

d u gouvernemen t

e t cgyprouvi s pa r l e Conseild u Tresor ; pourv u q u 'elle s soien t

menie s pa r

de s tierce s parties , aI'exceptio n de s Filiales , conformement au x arrangement s d e locatio n o u d'octro i depermis ; e ) octro i d'emprise s routieres , d e servitude s o u depermi s pou r de s droit s d e passag e o u d'acce s o u de s service s public s visan t

de s immeuble s fedirau x decrit s aI 'Annexe « B »o u dan s de s lettre s patente s supplimentaire s comm e ctan t de s immeuble s fediraux ;

### Page ; 42

p ) executio n de s activiti s decrite s a u paragraph e 7. 1 su r de s immeubles , autre s qu e de s immeuble s fideraux , decrit s hI 'Annex e « C » o u decrit s dan s de s lettre s patente s supplimentaire s comm

e etan t de s immeuble s autre s qu e de s immeuble s fediraux ; [43 ] I t mus t b e note dtha t

Schedul e B , a s referredt o i n subsectio n 7. 1 (c ) o f th e Letter s Patent , ha s bee n intentionall y delete dfromth e Letter s Patent . Schedul e C o f th e Letter s Paten t

describe s th e airport a s "Rea l Property Othe r

tha n Federa l Rea l Property" . [44 ] Sectio n 7, 2 o f

th e Letter s Paten t

define s activitie s unde r

sub-sectio n 2S(2)(b ) o f

th e Canad a Marin e Act , i.e . non-Crow n agen t activity . Sub-sectio n 7. 2 (j ) a s amende db y Supplementary Letter s Paten t January 3,200 4 i s specificall y dhecte dt o th e operatio n o f th e Toront o City Centr e Aiiport . 7. 2 Activitie s o f

th e Authority Necessary to Support Por t Operations , T

o operat e th e port , th e Authority ma y undertak e th e followin g activitie s whic har e deeme dnecessar y t o suppor t por t operation s pursuan t

topara^ap h28(2 ) (b ) o f th e Act : (j ) th e operatio n an dmaintenanc e o f th e Toront o Cit

y Centr e Airpor t

i n accordanc e wit

hth e Tripartit e Agreemen t amon g th e Corporatio n o f th e Cit y o f Toronto , He r Majest y th e Quee n i n Right

o f Canad aan dThe Toront o Harbou r Commissioner s date dth e 30t hda y o f June , 198 3 artdferr y service , an dth e constructio n operatio n an d maintenanc e o f

abridg e o r

tunne l acros s th e Wester n Ga p o f th e Toront o harbou r

t o provid e acces s t o th e Toront o Cit

y Centr e Airport ; [45 ] Ai r

Canad aargue s tha t

TP A i s a"federal board , commissio n o r othe r tribunal " eithe r becaus e i t i s aCrow n agen t

unde r sub-sectio n 28(l)(a ) o f

th e Canad aMarin e Ac t

because , a sPage ; 4 3

authorize db y sectio n 7. 1 o f th e Letter s Paten t

i t i s engage di n tiie "Ucensing " o f slots , o r tiiat th e sourc e o f powe r unde r whic hth e TP A wa s actin g wa s afederal statute , th e Ckmad aMarin e Act , an d thu s it s decision s i n th e exercis e o f that powe r i s subjec t t o judicia l review. [46 ] I wil l first

dea l wit hth e Crow n agen t argument . I t

i s clear that , i n enactin g sub-section s 28(2)(a ) an d(b ) o f

th e Canad aMarin e Act , ParHament intende dtha t

adistinctio n b e mad e i n respec t o f activitie s whic hacorporatio n suc ha s th e TP A coul dcarr y out an db e aCrow n agent , an d thos e whic hi t

coul dnot . Thos e activitie s wer e delineate di n section s 7. 1 an d7. 2 o f th e TPA' s Letter s Patent . [47 ] Sub-section s 7. 1 (c ) an d(e ) o f th e Letter s Paten t

relate onl y t o "Federa l Real Property " a s describe di n Schedul e B t o th e Letter s Paten t o r i n an y Supplementar

y letter s paten t

Schedul e B was intentionall y deleted , an dn o supplementary letter s paten t addres s th e matter . I n fact . Schedul e C describe s th e airport

a s bein g "Othe r

than " Federa l Real Property . Thus , sub-section s 7. 1 (c ) an d(e ) canno t mak e th e TP A aCrow n agent . [48 ] Suh-sectio n 7. 1 (p ) addresse s "Property Othe r tha n Federa l Rea l Property " a s describe di n Schedul e C . Schedul e C include s th e Toront o City Centr e Au^port . Thus , Ai r Canad aargues , tha t sub-sectio n i s applicabl e t o mak e th e TP A aCrow n agen t i f th e aUocatio n o f

slot s i s considere dt o b e alicensin g activity . [49 ] Sub-sectio n 7.20) > whic hi s part o f th e "non " Crow n agen t

activity , directi y addresse s th e operatio n an dmaintenanc e o f th e airport . I t

i s clear tha t th e allocatio n o f

slot s i s afimdamental partPage : 4 4

o f suc han operatio aGive n thi s clear language , ther e ca n b e n o doub t tha t th e TPA , i n respec t

o f th e operatio n an dmaintenanc e o f th e airport , includin g th e allocatio n o f slots , i s intende db y th e Canad aMarin e Ac t

an dLetter s Paten t

create dunde r

tha t Act , not t o b e actin g a s aCrow n agent . [50 ] Ai r

Canada' s Counse l argue dthat slot s wer e aki n t o alicenc e an dshoul db e considere da s a sectio n 7. 1 "licensing " activity a s describe db y th e Letter s Patent . I rejec t thi s argument . Sub

sectio n 7.2(j ) clearl y embrace s th e aitport an dit s operation . N o statut e o r Letter s Paten t

describe s a "slot " a s a"licence" . I t

canno t hav e bee n i n th e min do f th e drafter s t p separat e out th e allocatio n o f slot s firomth e operatio n an dmaintenanc e o f th e aiipor t

s o a s t o mak e th e TP A aCrow n agen t i n that narro w respect . A s ha s bee n expresse dman y time s b y th e Courts : "th e norma l interpretiv e rul e i s tha t aspecifi c provisio n mus t prevai l over

agenera l on e " e.g . Canad av . McGrego r (1989) , 5 7 D.L,R . (4* ) 31 7 pe r

Uri e J,A . for

tiic Federal Cour

t o f Appeal . [51 ] Turnin g t o th e secon dargumen t mad e a s t o whethe r

th e IP A i s a"federal board , commissio n o r

othe r tribunal" , th e Court

mus t conside r wha t power s wer e bein g exercise db y th e TP A an dth e sourc e o f

thos e powers . Th e Federa l Court o f Appea l recentl y i n Anisman v Canad a (Borde r Service s Agency) , 201 0 F C A 5 2 a s amende dApri l 29 , 2010 , ha s instructe dtha t atwo-ste p exercis e ha s U

) b e conducted . First , i t

mus t b e determine dwhat

jurisdictio n o r

powe r th e bod y o r perso n seek s t o exercise . Second , i t mus t b e determine dwhat

i s th e sovwc

e o r th e origi n o f

th e jurisdictio n o r

powe r whic hth e bod y o r

perso n seek s t o exercise . Natio n J A fo r th e Court wrot e at paragraph s 2 9 an d30 :

2 9 The operativ e word s o f th e s . 2 definitio n o f

"federal board , commissio n o r

othe r triburial " stat e tha t

suc habody o r

perso n has , exercise s o r

purport s t o exercis ejurisdictio n o r power s "conferre d b y o r unde r a n Ac t o f Parliamen t

o r by o r unde r a n Orde r mad ePage : 4 5 pursuan t t o aprerogativ e o f

th e Crown..." . Thus , atwo-ste p enquir y mus t b e mad e i n orde r

t o determin e whethe r

abody o r

perso n i s a 'federa l boar dcommissio n o r othe r tribunal" . First , i t

mus t b e determine dwha t

jurisdictio n o r

powe r th e body o r

perso n seek s t o exercise . Secon di t

mus t b e determine dwha t

i s th e sourc e o r

th e origi n o f th e jurisdictio n o r

powe r whic hth e bod y o r

perso n seek s t o exercise . 3 0 I n Judicia l Revie w ofAdministrcaiv e Actio n i n Canada , Vo l 1 , looselea f (Toronto : Canvasbac k

Publishing , 1998 ) a t

para . 2:4310 , th e learne dauthors , D.J.M . Brow n andJ.M . Evans , stat e tha t i n determinin g whethe r

abody o r

perso n i s a"federal boar d commissio n o r

othe r tribtmal" , on e mus t

loo k a t "the sourc e o f

a tribunal' s authority" . The

y writ e a s follows :

• I n th e result , th e sourc e of dtribunal' s authority , an dno t th e natur e o f eithe r th e powe r

exercise do r

th e bod y exercisin g it , i s th e primar y determinan t o f whethe r i t fall s i n th e definition . The tes t i s simpl y whethe r

th e bod y i s empowere db y o r unde r federa l legislatio n o r

b y a n orde r

rrtade pursuan t

t o a prerogativ e powe r

o f th e federa l Crown . [... ] [52 ] Two earlie r

decision s o f

th e Federa l Court

considere dth e natur e o f

th e power s exercise db y aport autiiority : i n bothcases , th e Halifax Port Authority . Th e first

i s Halter mLt dv Halifax Por t Authority (2000) , 18 4 F.T.R . 16 . I n tiiat case , tiie Halifax Por t

Autiiority , lik e tiie TPA , wa s create d pursuan t t o th e Ccmad aMarin e Act , Th e appUcant Haltci mwas atermina l operato r providin g stevedorin g service s an dequipmen t use dt o loa dan doffloa

dvessels . I t

wante dt o rene w h s lease s bu t foun dth e term s offere db y Halifa x Port Authority t o b e unacceptabl e an dsough t judicia l review . Justic e O'Keef

e foun dthat

th e por t authority wa s exercisin g federal power . H e wrot e a t paragrap h29 : 2 9 I n th e presen t case , whe n th e Por t

Authorit y i s leasin g o r negotiatin g t o leas e federa l rea l propert y t o Halterm , i t i s exercisin g power s give n t o i t pursuan t t o th e Canad aMarin e Act . I t i s no t exercisin g th e privat e power s o f acorporatio n a s tha t wordin g i s use di n Cairns , supra . I t i s exercisin g th e power s specificall y give n t o i t

i n th e Canad aMarin e Ac t an dthus , i t

i s a "federa l board , commissio n o r othe r tribunal " withi n th e Federa lPage : 4 6 Cour t Ac t whe n negotiatin g leases . A s aresult , thi s Cour t ha s jwisdictio n t o hea r

Halterm' sjudicia l revie w cyyplication . Thi s groun do f

th e motio n i s therefor e dismissed . [53 ] Subsequentiy , Justic e Mactavis ho f thi s Cour t als o ha dt o dea l withth e Halife x Port Autiiority i n DR l Vacation s Lt dv Halifixc Por t Authority , 200 5 F C 860 , [2006 ] 3 F.C.R . 516 . I n tha t case , th e applican t

wa s seekin g t o leas e premises fromth e port authority t o operat e asouveni r sho p an dallege dtha t

i t was denie dprocedura l feimess. Justic e Mactavishfoun dthat th e por t authority was not

actin g a s a"federal board" . Sh e distinguished , an di n an y even t decline dt o follow , Halterm . Sh e wrot e at paragraph s 5 3 t o 62 ; 5 3 While I a msatisfie dtha t H P A i s a n organizatio n wit hpubli c responsibilities , tha t

i s no t th e en do f

th e matter . I t

i s necessar y t o g o o n t o examin e whethe r

th e particula r

power s whic hhav e bee n exercise di n thi s cas e ar e publi c i n natur e o r ar e mor e i n th e natur e o f privat e commercia l activity . 5 4 Wha

t i s i n issu e i n thi s cas e i s th e licensin g o f por t spac e fo r wha t ha s variousl y bee n referre dt o i n thes e proceeding s a s a "souveni r shop" , a"market " an da"retai l outlet" . The purpos e o f th e sho p wa s describe db y counse l a s bein g t o "enhanc e th e por t experience " o f

th e passenger s an dcre w o f cruis e ship s dockin g a t

th e Por t o f Halifax . 5 5 In m y view , suc hasouveni r

sho p i s apurel y commercia l enterprise , on e whic hi s incidenta l t o th e H P A' s mai n responsibility fo r managin g por t

activitie s relatin g t o shipping , navigation , transportatio n o f

good s ari dpassenger s an dth e storag e o f goods . A s suc hI findtha t

th e H P A wa s no t

actin g a s a"federal board , commissio n o r

othe r tribunal " whe n i t

mad e th e decisio n unde r revie w i n thi s case . 5 6 A s aconsequence , I amsatisfie dtha t th e Cour t doe s no t hav e jurisdictio n t o dea l wit

hthi s applicatio n fo r

judicia l review . 5 7 I n comin g t o thi s conclusion , I amals o influence db y th e fac t tha t i n enactin g th e Canad aMarin e Ac t an di n creatin g th e HPA , Parliamen t

clearl y intende dt o .ensure tha t th e Por t o f Halifax i s ru n i n acommerciall y viabl e fashion . Entitlin g partie s t o judiciall y revie w every decisio n mad e i n relatio n t o federall y owne dpor tPage : 4 7 property , howeve r

incidenta l tha t

decisio n ma y b e t o th e operatio n o f th e por t itsel f woul di n m

y view , b e th e sor t

o f absur dan dver

y inconvenien t

resul t contemplate db y Justic e Thurlo w i n Wilcox , an d moreover , woiddb e antithetica l t o th e achievemen t o f Parliament' s inten t i n creatin g th e HPA . 5 8 Th e fac t tha t th e spac e i n questio n i s o n federa l lan di s not determinativ e o f

th e issue , i n m

y view . A numbe r

o f th e case s referre dt o abov e deal t

wit hdecision s relatin g t o th e expenditur e o r managemen t

o f publi c propert y —tha t

i s ta x dollars . Thes e monie s ar e monie s t o whic hordinar y privat e companie s woul dno t hav e access . Nevertheless , i n case s suc ha s Wilcox , Cairn s an dToront o Indepertden t

Danc e Enterprises , th e court s hav e foun dtha t th e institution s i n questio n wer e no t actin g a s federa l boards , commission s o r

othe r tribunal s in makin g th e decision s unde r review . 5 9 I n Halterm , th e Cour t wa s dealin g wit

hth e leas e o f

rea l propert y fo r

acontaine r

por t terminal , wherea s i n thi s case , wha t i s i n issu e i s th e licensin g o f spac e t o b e [page534 ] use dfo r asouveni r shop . 6 0 Halter mis , therefore , arguabl y distinguishabl e fromth e presen t situatio n i n tha t

th e transactio n i n questio n i n tha t cas e wa s muc hmor e directl y relate dt o th e busines s o f th e HPA a s apart . I n m y view , th e provisio n o f

asouveni r

sho p fo r th e pas.senger s an d cre w o f cruis e ship s i s considerabl y mor e incidenta l t o th e busines s o f th e Por t o f Halifax . 6 1 However , fo r

th e reason s given , t o th e exten t tha t Halter mi s not distinguishabl e fromth e presen t case , I mus t

respectfull y declin e tojbllo w it . 6 2 Before closing , I shoul dnot e tha t m y decisio n shoul dno t

b e interprete dt o mea n tha t

th e HP A coul dneve r

b e considere dt o b e a "federal boar dcommissio n o r othe r tribunal " a s contemplate db y th e Federa l Court s Ac t

I t i s clea r tha t th e questio n o f

whethe r a n institutio n i s actin g a s a"federal board , commissio n o r othe r tribunal " i n agive n se t

o f circumstance s i s on e tha t ha s t o b e resolve do n acase-by-cas e basis .Page : 4 8

[54 ] I n th e presen t

case , I return t o tiie Letter s Patent , whic hwer e drafte dpursuan t t o th e Canad a Marin e Ac t

an dpubUshe di n th e Canad aGazette , Th e Letter s Paten t wer e carefu l t o separat e out tiie operatio n an dmaintenanc e o f th e airport

fromothe r

activitie s t o b e carrie dout b y tiie TPA . Subsectio n 29(1 ) oiihsAAc t create s th e TP A a s acorporat e "nattiral person" . Regar dmus t b e ha dt o th e distinctio n mad e b y th e Federa l Court o f Appea l i n .<4eric . Inc . v Chairma n o f th e Boar do f Directors , Canad aPos t

Corporation , [1985 ] 1 F.C . 12 7 betwee n th e exercis e o f power s expressl y mandate db y astatu e an dth e exercis e o f th e genera l power s o f

managemen t

o f acorporation . Where astatut e expressl y mandate s that acertai n inquiry b e conducte do r decisio n made , tha t

i s a powe r reviewabl e b y th e Court

- genera l power s o f

managemen t

ar e no t Rya n J . for

th e Court wrot e at pag e 138 : The decisio n o f th e Chairma n o f

th e Boar dwhic hi s unde r

revie w wa s no t mad e i n th e exercis e o f

agenera l powe r

o f managemen t conferre do n th e Canad aPos t Corporation . Hi s decisio n wa s mad e i n th e exercis e o f

a n authorit y conferre do n hi mb y aregulatio n approve db y th e governo r i n Counci l pursuan t

t o th e Canad aPos t Corporatio n Act . The authority i s a n authorit y t o entertai n an d dispos e o f

a n "appeal" . The responden t suggeste dtha t

th e "appeal " i s analogou s t o th e sor t

o f procedur e often establishe db y abusines s firmt o handl e custome r

complaints . But

th e procedur e unde r

sectio n 6 o f th e Regulation s (whichI examin e i n detai l below ) i s ver y different from amer e systemfo r

settlin g complaints . The "tqipeal " provide db y sectio n 6 i s precisel y that : i t i s a n appeal . la msatisfie d tha t th e Chairman , i n entertainin g an ddisposin g o f th e appea l i n thi s case , i s aperso n withi n th e meanin g o f tha t wor da s i t

i s use di n th e definitio n o f

"federa l board , commissio n o r othe r tribunal " i n th e Federa l Cour t

Act . [55 ] I n th e presen t

case , th e TP A wa s expressl y empowere db y it s Letter s Paten t t o operat e an d manag e th e airport . TTii

s i s norma l busines s activity . I refer t o th e decisio n o f

th e Federa l Cour t

o f Appea l ii x Irvin g Shipbuildin g Inc . v Canad a(Attorne y General) , 200 9 FC A 116 , 31 4 D.L.R . (4* ^ 34 0 wher e tha t

Court warne dagains t

judicia l interferenc e i n circumstance s where , eve n thoug hth ePage ; 4 9

Crow n ma y b e involved , norma l busines s activity was bein g carrie don . Evan s J A for th e Court wrot e at paragrap h21 ; 2 1 Th e fac t

tha t th e powe r

o f th e Minister , apubli c official , t o awar dth e contrac t

i s statutory , an dtha t

thi s larg e contrac t

fo r th e maintenanc e an dservicin g o f th e Canadia n Navy' s submarine s i s a matte r o f publi c interest , indicat e tha t i t ca n b e th e subjec t

o f a n applicatio n fo r

judicia l revie w unde r

sectio n 18.1 , apubli c la w proceedin g t o challeng e th e exercis e o f publi c power . However , th e fac t tha t th e Minister' s broa dstatutor y powe r i s adelegatio n o f th e contractua l capacit y o f th e Crow n a s acorporatio n sole , an d tha t it s exercis e b y th e Ministe r involve s considerabl e discretio n an di s governe di n larg e par t b y th e privat e la w o f

contract , may limi t th e circumstance s i n whic hth e Cour t shoul dgran t

relie f o n a n applicatio n fo r

Judicia l revie w challengin g th e legalit y o f th e awar do f acontract . [56 ] I n th e presen t

case , I findtha t

th e TP A was not , u i respec t o f tiie "decisions " unde r

review , actin g a s a"federal board , commissio n o r other tribunal" . I t

wa s operatin g an dmaintainin g th e airpor t a s a n ordinary commercia l activity . Thi s Court lack s jurisdictio n t o revie w th e ''decisions " a t issue . [57 ] Nonetheles s I wil l addres s th e othe r issue s raise di n cas e o f

a n appeal . VIIIIssue#2 : I s Ai r

Canad aa**Dart

v directl y affected' * wh o ha s standin g t o see k judicia l revie w o f th e "decisions " a t

issue ? [58 ] I wi

U conside r

thi s issu e o n tiie assumptio n tha t th e TP A is , contrary t o wha t I hav e found , a "federal board , commissio n o r othe r tribunal" .Page : 5 0

[59 ] Sectio n 1 8 o f

th e Federa l Court s Ac t

i s silen t a s t o wh o ca n appl y for

judicia l revie w except , i n subsectio n 18(3) , whic hdirect s that remedies can onl y b e obtaine db y applicatio n for judicia l review unde r

sectio n 18.1 . Sub-section s 18.1(1 ) an d(2 ) state that a n ^plicatio n fo r

judicia l revie w ca n onl y b e brough t

b y th e Attorne y General o f Canad ao r

anyon e "directi y affected" . [60 ] Fo r

som e time , i t

ha s bee n considere dtha t

acommercia l interes t

alon e wa s no t

sufficient t o mak e aperso n "directi y affected " suc htha t the y woul dhav e standin g t o see k judicia l review. Th e leadin g cas e often reliedupo n i s Rothman s ofPa U Mal l Canad aLtd . v Canad a(Minister o f Nationa l Revenue) , [1976 ] 2 F.C . 500 . I n tiiat case , th e Federal Court

o f Appea l dismisse dan applicatio n for

judicia l revie w o f

a n excis e ta x decisio n respectin g certai n configuration s o f cigarette s manufacture db y competitor s o f th e applicant , bu t

not th e applican t

LeDai n J A for

th e Cotirt wrote , at paragraph s 12,13,1 4 an d16 : 1 2 Th e complain t

o f th e appellant s i s tha t

th e chang e i n departmenta l polic y wa s adopte dwithou t first givin g the ma n opportunit y t o b e hear dan dtha t i t ha dth e effec t

o f conferrin g a competitiv e advantag e o n th e responden t companie s b y permittin g themt o marke t

alonge r cigarett e fi? r

th e sam e amotm t

o f excis e duty a s i s pai db y th e appellants . Th e appellant s d o no t contend , no r i s ther e an y evidenc e t o suggest , tha t the y themselve s hav e ha d art y interes t i n marketin g acigarett e withatobacc o portio n o f les s tha n fou r inche s bu t

a n overal l length , includin g th e filter tip . o f mor e tha n fou r

inches . They d o no t

see k th e interpretatio n whic h the y conten dt o b e th e correc t on e i n orde r

t o permi t

the mt o d o anythin g i n particula r

tha t the y ar e no t

abl e t o d o now , bu t

rathe r t o preven t

th e responden t

companie s fromdoin g somethin g whic h i s though t t o giv e th e latte r

acommercia l advantage . 1 3 I a mi n agreemen t

withth e learne dTria l Judg e tha t suc ha n interes t i s no t sufficien t t o giv e th e appellant s th e require dstatu s o r locu s stand i t o obtai n an y o f th e relie f sough t i n thei r application . The appellant s d o no t hav e agenuin e grievanc e entitlin g the mt o challeng e b y lega l proceeding s th e interpretatio n whic hth e responden t

official s hav e give n t o th e definitio n o f "cigarette' * i n sectio n 6 o f th e Excis e Ac t

fo r purpose s o f

thei r

### Page : 5 1 administrativ e applicatio n o f th e Ac t Suc hinterpretatio n doe s no t adversel y affec t

th e lega l right s o f

th e appellant s no r

impos e an y additiona l lega l obligatio n upo n them . No r ca n i t reall y b e sai dt o affec t thei r interest s prejudiciall y i n an y direc t sense . I f i t permit s th e responden t

companie s t o d o somethin g whic hth e appellant s ar e no t doing , i t i s becaus e th e appellant s choos e no t t o d o it . 1 4 The appellant s d o no t deriv e an y rights , procedura l o r otherwise , frorn wha t

may hav e bee n thei r

ow n assumptio n a s t o ho w sectio n 6 o f

th e Excis e Ac t

woul db e applie dt o acigarett e i n whic hth e tobacc o portio n i s les s tha n fou r inche s lon g bu t

th e overal l lengt hincludin g th e filter tip, i s mor e tha n fou r inches . Befor e Ma y o r

June , 1975 , official s o f

th e Departmen t

ha dno t bee n calle do n t o conside r thi s questio n s o ther e wa s n o basi s i n thei r actio n fo r

suc ha n assumption . I n s o fa r a s th e interpretatio n i s t o b e considere da"change " o f administrativ e polic y i t

ca n onl y b e considere da s suc hi n relatio n t o th e interna l memorandu m circulate db y Horne r

a t th e beginnin g o f

June . Whe

n th e questio n wa s raise db y th e responden t companie s i n Ma y an dJun e th e departmenta l official s wer e unde r n o dut y t o advis e th e appellan t companie s an doffe

r the ma n opportunit y t o make representations . I kno w o f n o authorit y whic hsupport s agenera l duty , whe n considerin g achang e o f

administrativ e polic y t o b e applie di n individua l cases , t o notif

y an doffe

r anyon e wh o ma y b e intereste d a n opportunit y t o make representations . 1 6 The circumstance s i n th e presen t cas e ar e quit e differen t

an d affor dn o basi s fo r

aconclusio n tha t

th e responden t

official s acte d unfairl y towar dth e appellants . Ther e ha dbee n n o previou s representation s b y th e appellant s a s t o ho w th e definitio n i n sectio n 6 i n th e Excis e Ac t shoul db e applie dt o cigarette s o f th e kin dintroduce db y th e responden t companies . Ther e ha dbee n n o undertakin g t o th e appellant s wit hrespec t t o thi s question . No r

di d suc hpractic e a s ther e wa s wit hrespec t t o industr y representatio n giv e an y reasonabl e expectatio n tha t representation s o f

th e kin d mad e b y th e responden t

companies , involvin g amatte r o f a competitiv e nature , wer e suc ha s woul dcom e fromth e industry a s awhol e o r

b e promptl y communicate dt o th e industr y a s awhole . I n an y event , th e appellan t companie s learne do f

th e propose d polic y soo n afte r

i t wa s adopte dan dha da n opportunit y t o make representations .

### P^e : 5 2

[61 ] I followe dtiiis case , a s we U a s other s i n Aventi s Pharm aInc . v Canad a(Ministe r o f Health) , 200 5 F C 1396,4 5 C.P.R . (4*^ ) 6. 1 als o cite dMerc k

Fross t Canad aIn c v Canad a(Minister o f Nationa l Healt han dWelfare ) (1997) , 14 6 F.T.R . 24 9 wher e Hugesse n J . wrot e at paragrap h11 ; 7 / Som e o f

th e case s hav e use dconcept s suc ha s absenc e o f standin g an dnon-justiciabilit y a s aconvenien t shorthan dt o describ e thi s limitatio n o n th e patentee' s rights . Seizin g o n thi s th e applicant s argue , base do n suc hcase s a s Canad av . Finlay , [1986 J 2 5 . CR . 607 , Canad av . BorowsM , [1981 ] 2 S CR . 57 5 an d Operatio n Dismantl e v . Canada , [1985 ] 1 SCR . 441 , tha t the y d o indee dhav e standin g an dtha t th e issue s tha t

the y rais e are , i n fact , justiciable . The argumen t mistake s th e for mfo r

th e substance . I t

i s no t lac k o f standin g o r

justiciabilit y i n th e stric t sens e o f thos e word s whic hprevent s th e applicant s fromraisin g non-complianc e withth e healt han dsafel y concern s o f th e Foo dan dDru g Act , an d Regulations ; i t

i s simpl y tha t

thos e matter s ar e o f

n o concer n l o the man dcanno t

b e raise db y the mi n a n attac k o n adecisio n o f th e Ministe r

t o issu e a n NOC . I t

i s th e Ministe r

himsel f wh o i s charge dwithth e protectio n o f th e publi c healt han dsafety an dn o privat e interes t

o f th e applicant s arise s fromhi s allege dfailur e t o perfor mhi s dutie s withrespec t t o othe r persons . [62 ] Subsequenti y i n Ferrin g Inc . v Canad a(Ministe r o f Health) , 200 7 F C 300 , [2008 ] 1 F.C.R . 19, 1 foun dtha t

amer e economi c interes t was insufficient

t o allo w standing . I wrot e at paragraph s 9 9 an d100 : 9 9 Sectio n 18. 1 [a s enacte db y S C . 1990 , c . 8 , s . 5 ; 2002 , c . 8 , s .

27 ] o f th e Federa l Court s Act , R.S.C. , 1985 . c . F- 7 [s . 1 (a s am . idem , s . 14) ] afford s an y perso n "directl y affected " b y adecisio n o f afedera l board , commissio n o r othe r tribuna l th e righ t

t o see k judicia l revie w o f

tha t decision . A s discusse di n respec t o f subsection s 3(1 ) o f

th e NO C Regulations , ageneri c i s no t afforde d a n opportunit y t o interven e i n proceeding s respectin g th e listin g o f apaten t o r t o see k de-listin g since , a t

tha t point , n o particula r generi c ca n b e see n t o b e "directl y affected, " Thi s i s consisten t withth e la w expresse di n Rothman s o f Pal l Mal l Canad aLimite d V, Ministe r

o f Nationa l Revenu e (No . 1) , [1976 ] 2 F.C . 50 0 (C.A. ) tha t aperso n wh o i s simpl y amembe r o f aclas s generall y affecte d b y adecision , withou t

more , ha s n o statu s t o see k judicia l revie w (se e als o Apote x Inc . v . Canad a(Govemo r i n Council) , 200 7 F C 232) .Page : 5 3 10 0 I t ha s bee n foun dtha t

amer e economi c interes t i s insufficien t

t o suppor t

statu s t o see k

judicia l revie w (Aventi s Pharm aInc . v . Canad a(Ministe r o f Healtii ) (2005) , 4 5 C.P.R . (4th ) 6 (F.C- f a t paragrap h13) . Tha t

decisio n wa s appeale dbu t th e appea l wa s no t

proceede dwit hI n tha t

case , th e innovator , Aventis , ha dapparentl y faile dt o lis t it s paten t i n atimel y fashio n The generi c Novophar mwa s awarde da n NO C b y th e Minister . Aventi s sough t

judicia l revie w o f

tha t decision . The Ministe r sough t t o strik e ou t

thos e portion s o f

Aventis ' applicatio n challengin g th e issuanc e o f a n NOC . [63 ] I was reverse do n thi s poin t b y th e Federal Court

o f Appea l i n Ferrin g Inc . v Canad a (Ministe r o f Health) , 200 7 FC A 276,37 0 N.R . 263 , wher e Richar dC J fo r tiie Court wrote , a t paragrap h5 : 5 W

e differ fromJustic e Hughe s o n onl y on e poin t A s a n alternativ e basi s fo r

dismissin g th e applicatio n o f Ferrin g Inc. , Justic e Hughe s conclude dtha t Ferrin g Inc . di dno t

hav e standin g t o brin g a n applicatio n fo r judicia l revie w o f

th e decisio n o f

th e Minister . W

e d o no t agree . I n ou r

view , Ferrin g Inc . di dhav e standin g t o challeng e tha t decisio n becaus e i t

wa s mad e b y th e Ministe r i n th e cours e o f

hi s administratio n o f

th e NO C Regulations . However , tha t doe s no t alte r th e outcom e becaus e Justic e Hughe s dismisse dth e applicatio n o f Ferrin g Inc . o n th e merits . [64 ] Th e matte r

wa s recenti y reviewe db y tiie Federa l Court o f Appea l i n Irvin g Shipbuildin g Inc . V Canad a(Attorne y General) , 200 9 FC A 116 , 31 4 D.L.R

- (4* ) 340 . I n tha t case , asubcontracto r challenge da n awar do f

acontract . Th e subcontiacto r argue dtha t

i t woul dhav e bee n engage db y th e contracto r

wh o los t th e bid . Th e challeng e wa s o n th e basi s o f lac k o f procedura l faimess . Th e Trial Judg e foun dtha t

th e subcontracto r

di dnot hav e standing . Th e Court o f Appeal , Evan s J.A . writin g for

th e Court, considere dth e issu e o f standin g o n th e basi s tha t i t ha dt o b e addresse di n context ; i n that

case , i n th e contex t

o f procedura l faimess , an dthat th e court shoul dnot

becom ePage : 5 4

entangle di n asemanti c wastelan dno r attemp t t o formulate o r

appl y variou s "tests" . H e wrot e at paragraph s 28 , 3 2 an d33 ;

2 8 I n m

y view , th e questio n o f

th e appellants ' standin g shoul db e answere dno t

i n th e abstract , bu t

i n th e contex t

o f th e groun do f revie w o n whic hthe y rely , namely , breac ho f th e dut y o f procedura l fairness . Thus , i f th e appellant s hav e arigh t t o procedura l fairness , the y mus t als o hav e th e righ t

t o brin g th e matte r t o th e Cour t

i n orde r t o attemp t

t o establis htha t

th e proces s b y whic hth e submarin e contrac t wa s awarde dt o CSM Gviolate d thei r procedura l rights . JfPWGS C owe dth e appellant s adut y o f fairnes s an dawarde dth e contrac t t o CSM G i n breac ho f

tha t duty , the y woul db e "directl y affected " b y th e impugne ddecision . I f the y d o no t hav e arigh t

t o procedura l fairness , tha t shoul dnormall y conclud e th e matter . Whil e I d o no t findi t necessar y t o conduc t

a n independen t

standin g analysis , I shal l briefl y addres s tw o issue s tha t aros e fromth e parties ' submissions . 3 2 T o attac hth e .significanc e urge dby th e respondent s t o Parliament' s choic e o f

th e word s "directl y affected" , rathe r tha n an y o f th e commo n la w standin g requirement s f'perso n aggrieved " o r "speciall y affected" , fo r

example ) would , i n m

y view , ignor e th e contex t an dpurpos e o f

th e statutor y languag e o f subsectio n 18.1(1) . A s th e Suprem e Cour t

o f Canad asai drecentl y i n Khos a(a t par a 19 f • .. . mos t

i f no t al l judicia l revie w statute s ar e drafte dagains t th e backgroun do f

th e commo n la w o f

judicia l review . Eve n th e mor e comprehensiv e amon g them.. . ca n onl y sensibl y b e interprete di n th e commo n la w context.. . 3 3 Moreover , sinc e al l thes e term s ar e somewha t indeterminate . Parliament' s choic e o f

on e rathe r

tha n anothe r

shoul db e regarde d a s o f relativel y littl e importance . Se e als o Thoma s A Cromwell , Locu s Standi : A Commentary o n th e Law o f Standin g i n Canad a (Toronto : Carswell , 1986 ) a t 163-6 4 ("Locu s Stmdi") , especiall y hi s ap t descriptio n (a t

163 ) o f th e "semanti c wasteland " t o b e traverse d b y acour t

i n attemptin g t o appl y th e variou s "test s "fo r standing , bothstatutor y an dcommo n law . Althoug hdirecte da t difference s betwee n th e Frenc han dEnglis htext s o f subsectio n 18.1(4 ) o f

th e Federa l Court s Act , th e followin g statemen t i n Khos a(a t

para . 39 ) seem s equall y ap t

i n th e interpretatio n o f

th e word s "directi y affected " i n subsectio n 18.1(1) :

### Page ; 5 5 A blinkere dfocu s on the textua l variation s migh

t lea dto an interpretatio n a t

odd s wit h the mode

mrul e [o f Statutor y interpretation ] because , standin g alone , linguisti c consideration s ough

t no t t o elevat e an argument

abou t tex t above the relevant

context, purpos e an dobjective s o f the legislative scheme . [65 ] Fromall o f

th e foregoing , I conclud

e tha t ther e i s no simple formul awhereby aperso n having acommercia

l interes t ca n b e saidto lack

standing simpl

y o n tha t basis . The contex

t o f th e situation an

dth e basi s fo

r judicia l review mus t

b e considered , [66 ] Her

e Air Canadaha s ha

dadegree of

involvemen

t vdt htiie BBTCA andth e TP

A fo r som e considerable time . Ai

r Canadahas , throug

haffihates , operate

dfromtha t airport . It ha s bee n involvedin continuing discussion s wit hth e TPA , who i s i n charg e o f operating andmaintaining tha t airport . The basi s upon whichjudicial review i s sough t rest s o n allegatioti s o f

lack o f procedura l faimess . I findtha

t Ai r Canadaha s standing t o bring thes e application s but onl y if TP A wer e a "federa l board , commission or

othe r tribunal" , whichI hav e foun dotherwise . E X Jssne #3 : Wer e th e "decisions' * o f Pecembc r

24,200 9 an dApri l 9,201 0 o f akin dtha t

ca n b e th e subjec t

o f judicial revie w i n thi s Court ? [67 ] Section 18. 1 of

th e Fet/era/Cottr/j^c ^ permit s judicia l review of a"decision or

a n order " o f a"federa l board , commission or

othe r tribunal" . I

n addressing thi s issue I will assum e that , contraiy to m y finding, th e TP

A i s suc ha"federa l board , commission or

othe r tribunal" .Page ; 5 6

[68 ] Whe n dealin g wit habod y tha t i s clearl y a"federal board , commissio n o r other tribunal " th e Court s hav e bee n quit e stric t i n lookin g at

th e appropriat e legislatio n an dconsiderin g whethe r what ha s bee n don e i s a"decision " a s mandate db y tha t legislation . I f

i t i s not , the n ther e can b e n o judicia l review . A n exampl e i s Democrac y Watchv Canad a(Conflic t o f Interes t an dEthic s Commissioner) , 200 9 FC A 15 , 38 7 N.R . 36 5 (F-C.A. ) wher e Richar dC J for th e court wrot e at paragraph s 1 0 an d11 :

1 0 Wher

e administrativ e actio n doe s no t affec t a n applicant' s right s o r carr y lega l consequences , i t i s no t amenabl e t o judicia l revie w (Pieters v . Canad a(Attorne y General) , [2007]F.C.J . No . 746 , 200 7 F C 55 6 a t

paragrap h60 ; Rothmans , Benso n & Hedge s Inc . V . Canad a(Ministe r

o f Nationa l Revenue ^ (1998) , 14 8 F . T.R . 3 a t paragrap h28 ; se e als o Canadia n Institut e o f Publi c an d Privat e Rea l Estat e Cos . v . Bel l Canada , [2004 ] F. C J N o 1103 , 200 4 FC A 24 3 a t

paragraph s 5&7) . 1 1 The applican t

ha s n o statutor y righ t

t o hav e it s complain t investigate db y th e Commissione r aru i th e Commissioner

ha s n o statutor y duty t o ac t

o n it . Ther e i s n o provisio n i n th e Ac t tha t allow s amembe r

o f th e publi c t o reques t

tha t th e Commissioner begi n a n examination . Indeed , th e Ac t specificall y contemplate s th e rout e whic hamembe r

o f th e publi c shoul dtak e i f i t wishe s t o presen t informatio n t o th e Commissioner : 44... . • (4 ) I n conductin g a n examination , th e Commissione r may conside r informatio n fromth e publi c tha t i s brough t

to hi s o r he r attentio n by amember

o f th e Senat e o r

Hous e o f Common s indicatin g tha t

apubli c office holde r

o r forme r publi c office holde r ha s contravene dthi s Ac t

The member

shal l identif

y th e allege d contraventio n an dse t

out th e reasonabl e pound s fo r believin g a contraventio n ha s occurred... .

• * * 44 . [... ] • (4 ) Dan s l e cadr e d e Titude , l e commissair e peu t teni r compte de s renseignement s provenan t du publi c qu i lu i son t communiqui s pa r

tou t parlementair e e t

qu i porten t

acroir e qu e I'intiress i acontreven u alapresent e lo i L e parlementair e doi tPage : 5 7 pricise r l acontraventio n presumi e ains i qu e le s motif s raisonnable s qu i l e porten t

dcroir e qu'un e contraventio n ait e commise . [.. ] [69 ] However , abroade r approac hha s bee n take n b y th e court s wher e th e function s in questio n wer e withi n th e overal l scop e o f th e enablin g legislation . Suc hasituatio n was considere db y Justic e Mactavis ho f

tiiis Court

i n She av Canad a(Attorney General ) (2006) , 29 6 F.T.R . 81 , wher e thi s Court wa s aske dt o revie w procedure s respecting th e selectio n o f person s for

manageria l positions . Sh e wrot e at

paragraph s 4 2 t o 44 ; 4 2 The absenc e o f

a"decision " i s no t

aba r t o a n applicatio n fo r judicia l revie w unde r

th e Federa l Court s Ac t

a s Sectio n 18. 1 provide s th e Cour t

withjurisdictio n t o gran t relie f t o apart y affecte db y " amatter " involvin g afedera l board , commissio n o r othe r tribunal : Canadia n Museu mo f Civilizatio n Corp . v . Publi c Servic e Allianc e o f

Canada , Loca l 7039 6 [2006 ] F.C. J No . 884 , 200 6 F C 703 , a t

para . 47 . 4 3 The rol e o f

thi s Cour t

thu s extend s beyon dth e revie w o f forma l decisions , an dextends t o th e revie w o f " adivers e rang e o f administrativ e actio n tha t doe s no t amoun t t o a'decisio n o r

order' , suc ha s subordinat e legislation , report s o r recommendation s mad e pursuan t t o statutor y powers , polic y statements , guideline s an d operatin g manuals , o r

art y o f th e myria dform s tha t

administrativ e actio n ma y tak e i n th e delivery b y astatutor y agenc y o f apubli c programme." : Markevic hv . Canada , [1999 ] 3 F.C . 2 8 (QL ) (T.D.) , a t para . 11 , reverse do n othe r grounds , [2001 ] F.C.J . No . 696 , reverse do n othe r

grounds , [2003 ] S.C. J No . 8 . Se e als o Nunavu t Tunngavi k

Inc . v , Canad a(Attorne y General ) [2004 ] F.C.J . No . 138 , 200 4 F C 85 , a t

par a8 . 4 4 A wid e rang e o f

administrativ e action s hav e bee n foun dt o com e withi n th e Court' s jurisdiction : see , fo r exampl e Gestio n Complex e Cousinea u (1989 ) Inc . v . Canad a(Ministe r o f Publi c Work s an dGovernmen t

Services) , [1995 ] 2 F.C . 694 ; Momeaul t V. Canad a(Attorne y General) , [2001 ] 1 F. C 3 0 (C.A.),and1mx y Holding s (c.o. b Quicki e Convenienc e Stores ) v . Canad a(Ministe r o f Health) , [2003 ] 1 F.C . 54 1 (T.D.).) , 200 2 FC T 750 . [70 ] Mactavis hJ dismisse dtha t applicatio n a s premature .Page ; 5 8

[71 ] Mos t

importantiy , Irvin g Shipbuildin g mus t b e considered . Evan s J A for th e Cour t considere dth e issu e o f

whethe r ther e existe da"reviewabl e decision " i n th e contex t o f th e enablin g legislation , h i that

case , ther e wa s astatutory authority impose do n th e Ministe r t o awar dcontract s for , i n tha t

case , submarines . Evan s JA sai dtha t wher e th e exercis e o f

th e Minister' s discretio n i s give n considerabl e scope , th e Court shoul db e reluctan t

t o ste p in . However , wher e aprocuremen t proces s i s closel y linke dt o astatutory power , th e greate r th e likelihoo do f

judicia l review . Evan s J A wrote , at paragraph s 2 1 t o 25 : 2 1 The fac t

tha t th e powe r

o f th e Minister , apubli c official , t o awar dth e contrac t

i s statutory , an dtha t

thi s larg e contrac t

fo r th e maintenanc e an dservicin g o f th e Canadia n Navy' s submarine s i s a matte r o f publi c interest , indicat e tha t i t ca n b e th e subjec t

o f a n applicatio n fo r

judicia l revie w unde r

sectio n 18.1 , apubli c la w proceedin g t o challeng e th e exercis e o f publi c power . However , th e fac t tha t th e Minister' s broa dstatutor y powe r i s adelegatio n o f th e contractua l capacit y o f th e Crow n a s acorporatio n sole , an d tha t it s exercis e b y th e Ministe r involve s considerabl e discretio n an di s governe di n larg e par t b y th e privat e la w o f

contract , may limi t th e circumstance s i n whic hth e Cour t shoul dgran t

relie f o n a n applicatio n fo r

judicia l revie w challengin g th e legalit y o f th e awar do f acontrac t 2 2 Thi s Cour t

reache dasimila r

conclusio n i n Gestio n Complex e Cousinea u (1989 ) Inc . v . Canad a(Ministe r o f Publi c Work s an dGovernmen t

Services) , [1995 ] FCJ . No . 735 , [1995 ] 2 F . C . 69 4 (C.A. ) a t

paras . 7-1 7 (^'Gestio n Complexe' 7 The Cour t hel dtha t th e exercis e b y aMiniste r o f astatutor y powe r

t o cal l fo r tender s an dx

o ente r int o contract s fo r

th e leas e o f

lan db y th e Crow n coul db e th e subjec t o f judicia l revie w unde r

th e forme r paragrap hIS(l)(a ) o f

th e Federa l Cour t

Ac t a s adecisio n o f

" a federa l board , commissio n o r othe r tribtmal" . 2 3 Althoug hno t

addressin g th e particula r issu e i n disput e i n th e presen t case . Justic e Decary , writin g fo r th e Court , als o emphasize dth e difficultie s facin g a n applican t i n establishin g a groun do f

revie w tha t

woul dwarran t

th e Court' s interventio n i n th e procuremen t

proces s throug hit sjudicia l revie w jurisdiction . Thus , h e sai d(atpara . 20) :Page : 5 9

• A s b y definitio n th e focu s o f judicia l revie w i s o n th e legality o f (h e federa l govemrnent' s actions , an dth e tenderin g procedur e wa s not

subjec t t o art y legislativ e o r

regulator y requirement s a s t o for mo r substance , i t

wil l no t b e easy , i n a situatio n wher e th e bi ddocument s d o no t impos e stric t limitation s o n th e exercis e b y th e Ministe r o f hi s freedomo f choice , t o sho w th e natur e o f th e illegality committe dby th e Ministe r whe n i n th e norma l cours e o f event s h e compare s th e bid s received , decide s whethe r abi di s consisten t

wit hth e document s o r

accept s on e bi drathe r

tha n another . 2 4 Thi s vie w o f

th e Court' s jurisdictio n i s consisten t wit htha t generall y adopte db y othe r court s i n Canada : se e Pau l Emanuelli , Governmen t

Procurement , 2nded . (Markham , Ontario : LEXISNEXIS , 2008 ) a t

697-706 , wh o conclude s (a t 698) :

• As agenera l rule , th e close r th e connectio n betwee n aprocuremen t

proces s an dth e exercis e o f astatutor y power , th e greate r

th e likelihoo dtha t

th e activity ca n b e subjec t t o judicia l review . Conversely , t o th e exten t tha t th e procuremen t

fall s outsid e th e scop e o f astatutor y powe r

an d withi n th e exercis e o f

government' s residua l executiv e power , th e les s likely tha t

th e procuremen t

wil l b e subjec t

t o judicia l review . Englis hauthoritie s o n publi c contract s an d judicia l revie w ar e considere di n Harr y Wool f Jeffie y Jowel l an dAndre w L e Sueur , d e Smith' s Judicia l Review , 6t hed . (London

Swee t d t Maxwel l Ltd. , 2007) , 138-45 , wher e court s generall y requir e a n "additionalpubli c element " befor e concludin g tha t

th e exercis e b y apubli c authorit y o f it s contractua l powe r

i s subjec t

t o judicia l review , eve n whe n th e powe r i s statutory . 2 5 Consequently , o n th e basi s o f bothauthorit y an dprinciple , I agre e tha t

th e awar do f

th e submarin e contrac t

b y th e Ministe r

o f PWGS C i s reviewabl e unde r sectio n 18. 1 o f

th e Federa l Court s Ac t a s adecisio n o f

a"federal board , commissio n o r othe r tribunal " mad e i n th e exercis e o f

"power s conferre db y o r unde r a n Ac t o f Parliament " (sectio n 2) . [72 ] I n th e presen t

case , th e TP A i s give n abroa dmandat e respectin g th e operatio n an d maintenanc e o f

th e airport . N o specifi c procedura l requirement s ar e se t down . A s I hav e found , TP A

### Page ; 6 0

i s acting a s an

y othe r privat e secto r commercia

l corporation an

dnot a s a"federa

l board , commission o

r othe r tribunal" . [73 ] Th e "decisions " a

t issu e her e ar e no t really "decisions " a

t all . The y do no t detennin e anything . Th

e bulletin o f

Decembe r 24,200 9 i s a

n announcemen

t tha t certain studie s ha

dbee n conductedandtha

t "no w tha t w e hav e the results in hand[th e TPA ] wi U solicit forma l busines s proposals " an

dtha t "a n independent , lATA-accreditedslo t co-ordinator " will b e appointed . The bulletin statedtha

t furthe r announcements will b e made . [74 ] I n th e context , ther

e i s n o "decision or

order " made . A

n announcemen

t wa s mad e tha t soo n proposal s will b e soUcite

db y th e TPA . I

n fact , tha t wa s done andAir

Canadasubmittedaproposal . In fact , ACL , a

n lATA-acciedite dslot

co-ordinato

r wa s retained . A hCanadaha s no t complainedo f tha t appointment . Ther

e simpl y i s no "decision o

r order " i n th e Decembe

r 200 9 bulletin . [75 ] Th e Apri l 200 9 buUeti

n re:questedintereste dpartie s (sucha s Air Canada ) "t o participat

e in th e RF P (Reques t fo r Proposal ) process " andannouncedth e appointmen t o f ACLa s slo t

co ordinator . Again ther

e i s no "decisio n or

order " affectin

g Air Canada . I n fact, Ai r Canadasubmitte

d aProposa l an dha s made n o complain

t a s t o th e appointmen

t o f ACL , I n submitting it s Proposal , Ai r Canadaagreedwit

hTPA' s guiding principle s andappointmen t o f AC La s slo t

co-ordinato

r a s se t ou t i n it s respons e datedMa

y 14,2010 . [76 ] Th e step s take

n b y TPA , a s announcedin it s Decembe r 200 9 an dApril 201 0 buUetins , ar

e thos e respecting tiie norma

l commercia

l operation o f

th e airport . The

y are no t step s specificall

yPage ; 6 1

mandate db y an y legislation , no r ar e thos e step s specificall y directe dt o Ai r Canada , The y ar e not "decision s o r

orders " o f

th e typ e fo r

whic hjudicia l review i s availabl e i n thi s Court . X Issu e #4 : Ha s Ai r

Canad aproperl y pleade dth e sround s upo n whic hi t i s no w reivin g fo r judicia l review ? [77 ] Botho f

thes e case s hav e proceede db y wa y o f an application . Rul e 30 1 o f th e Federa l Court s Rule s set s ou t

wha t th e Notic e o f

Apphcatio n mus t

contain ; 301 . An applicatio n shal l b e commence db y anotic e o f applicatio n i n For m301 , settin g ou t (a ) th e nam e o f

th e cour t t o whic hth e applicatio n i s addressed ; (b ) th e name s o f

th e applican t

an drespondent ; (c ) wher e th e applicatio n i s a n applicatio n fo r judicia l review , (i ) th e tribuna l i n respec t

o f whic hth e applicatio n i s made , an d (ii ) th e dat e an ddetail s o f an y orde r i n respec t

o f whic h judicia l revie w i s sough t

an dth e dat e o n whic hi t

wa s first communicate dt o th e applicant ; (d) aprecis e staternen t

o f th e relie f sought ; (e ) acomplet e an dconcis e statemen t o f th e pound s intende dt o b e argued , includin g areferenc e t o an y statutor y provisio n o r rul e t o b e relie don ; an d <f ) alis t o f th e documentary evidenc e t o b e use da t th e hearin g o f

th e applicatio n [78 ] A |;espondent

doe s no t nee dt o file anythin g mor e tha n aNotic e o f Appearanc e a s se t

out i n Rul e 305 .Page : 6 2 305 . A responden t

wh o intend s t o oppos e a n applicatio n shall , withi n 1 0 day s afte r

bein g serve dwithanotic e o f application , serv e an dfile anotic e o f appearanc e i n For m305 . [79 ] Th e jurisprudenc e varie s widel y a s t o what aNotic e o f

AppUcatio n shoul dse t

ou t an dho w detaile di t mus t be . Th e reaso n to r

suc hvarie djurisprudenc e i s becaus e o f th e variou s sort s o f matter s that

ar e considere db y wa y o f an application : immigration , publi c servic e disputes , citizen s challengin g governmen t

decisions , copyrigh t

infiingemen t

and , i n case s suc ha s this , comple x commercia l matters . Subsectio n 18.4(1 ) o f th e Federa l Court s Ac t

direct s tha t

a n applicatio n shal l b e heardan ddetermine di n asummary way witho mdelay . However , subsectio n 18.4(2 ) permit s a n applicatio n t o b e converte duit o a n action , i f appropriate . A n earlie r

applicatio n brough t

b y Jaz z Ai r wa s converte dint o a n actio n an dha s sinc e bee n abandoned . [80 ] Rul e 30 1 require s aprecis e statemen t o f th e rehe f sough t an dacomplet e an dconcis e statemen t o f th e ground s intende dt o b e argued . Rul e 7 5 permit s adocument , for instance , aNotic e o f AppUcation , t o b e amended , th e purpos e i n clearl y settin g out th e relief sough t an dground s t o b e argue di s not

onl y tha t th e othe r partie s wi U kno w th e cas e t o b e me t an dnot b e caugh t b y surprise , but als o s o tha t

th e Court hearing th e matte r

wil l kno w wha t

issue s i t wil l hav e t o conside r

an d detemtine . Th e Com t

doe s no t wis ht o b e confronte dat

th e hearin g withane w argumen t o r different reUe f t o b e sough t

A n appeUat

e Court shoul dno t

b e confiX)nte

dwitha n assertio n that

th e Trial Judg e di dno t

appreciat e th e un-pleade dargumen t mad e o r direc t th e reasons an djudgemen t t o ne w or different argument s o r

reUef sough t [8 1 ] Th e Court

has , for instance , i n comple x case s brough t unde r th e Patente dMedicine s (Notic e o f Compliance ) Regulations , SOR/93-133 , take n astric t positio n respectin g no t

onl y aNotic e o fPage : 6 3

Allegation , whic hi s not

aCourt document , but

als o th e Notic e o f

AppUcatio n institutin g th e Cour t Procedure . A s a

n example , ther e i s th e decisio n o f Layden-Stevenso n J (a s sh e the n was ) i n AstraZenecaA B v Apote x Inc , 200 6 F C 7,4 6 C.P.R . (4* ) 418 , wher e sh e wrot e at paragraph s 11 , 1 8 an d19 : 1 1 Astr aargued , bothi n it s writte n submissio n an di n ora l

argument , bu t

di dno t plead , relianc e o n th e doctrin e o f issu e estoppel . Afte

r hearin g frombothparties , I invite dAstr at o conside r (prio r t o it s reply ) whethe r

i t wishe dt o abando n it s position . I t

di dnot . I wi

H therefor e addres s thi s question . 1 8 I rejec t

Astra' s argumen t

tha t th e requiremen t

i n Rul e 30 1 (e ) ca n b e characterize da s atechnica l argumen t tha t elevate s for m ove r substance . The rul e mandate s tha t a n applicatio n i s t o b e commence db y anotic e o f applicatio n tha t

mus t se t ou t acomplet e an dconcis e statemen t

o f th e ground s intende dt o b e argued . I als o rejec t th e submissio n tha t

th e jurisprudenc e doe s no t evinc e th e applicatio n o f

th e rul e t o proceeding s brough t unde r th e Regulations . In thi s respect , I refe r specificall y t o Pharmaci aInc . etal . V . Ministe r o f Nationa l Healt han dWelfare e t a l (1995) , 6 0 C.P.R . (3d ) 32 8 (F.C.T.D. ) a t pp . 339 , 34 0 aff d(1995) , 6 4 C.P.R . (3d ) 45 0 (F.C . A. ) a t

paragrap h1 . Se e also : Baye r A G e t al . v . Apote x Inc . eta l (2003) , 2 9 C.P.R . (4th ) 14 3 (F.C. ) an dPfize r Canad aInc . an dPfize r

Inc . v . Apote x Inc . an dth e Ministe r o f Healt h[2005]F.C. J No . 1730 , 2005F C 1421 . 1 9 I f th e intervenin g decisio n o f th e Cour t

o f Appea l crystallize d Astra' s issu e estoppe l argument , a s allege dAstr acoul dhav e utilize dRul e 7 5 whic hprovide s tha t th e Cour t

ma y o n motion , a t an y lime , allo w apart y t o amen dadocument , o n suc hterm s a s wil l protec t

th e right s o f

al l parties . Rul e 7 5 applie s t o al l proceedings . A n applicatio n i s aproceedin g (see : Rule s 6 1 an d 300) . Indeed , Astr awa s awar e o f Rul e 7 5 fo r

i t utilize di t

i n Cour t Fil e No . T-1747-00 , amatte r tha t concerne dth e sam e tablet s an d th e sam e parties , i n it s applicatio n fo r a n orde r o f prohibitio n unde r th e Regulations . A s jd r

th e timing , a s Mr . Radomski notes , th e Federa l Court

o f Appeal' s decisio n wa s issue do n Novembe r 3 , 2003 . The evidenc e i n thi s matte r wa s fa r fromcomplet e a t

tha t time. Dr . Lindquist' s (Astra' s expert witness ) secon daffidavi t wa s no t swor n unti l Apri l 15 , 2004 . Apote x filedfou r affidavit s afte r tha t dat e an dDr , Lindquist' s thir daffidavi t wa s no t swor n unti lPage : 6 4 Septembe r

24 , 2004 . A t

n o point , di dAstr asee k

t o amen dit s notic e o f application . [82 ] However , th e Court s hav e als o take n amor e flexible approach , particularl y wher e n o party ha s bee n take n b y surpris e an dsom e general wordin g containe di n th e ground s ca n b e take n t o support th e argument s mad e a t

th e hearing . A n exampl e o f thi s approac hi s tha t

take n b y d e Montign y i'mKinse y v Canad a(Attorney General) , IQQI F C 543,31 3 F.T.R . 8 8 vdiere h e wrot e a t paragraph s 3 1 t o 34 :

3 1 Before turnin g t o th e substantiv e issue s i n thi s application , I mus t dea l withtw o preliminar y objection s mad e b y th e respondents . First , counse l argue dth e constable s di dno t rais e th e mai n ground s o f

thei r applicatio n i n eithe r

thei r notic e o f applicatio n o r

supportin g affidavits . Rather , the y onl y raise dthe m i n thei r applicatio n record s fo r

th e first time. Counse l cite d Williamso n v . Canad a(Attorne y General) , [2005 ] F.C. J No . 1186 , 200 5 F C 954 , fo r

th e propositio n tha t

apart y canno t

rais e issue s o n judicia l revie w tha t

wer e no t raise di n hi s initia l notic e o f applicatio n an dsupportin g affidavits . 3 2 Rul e 30 1 (e ) o f

th e Federa l Court s Rules , SOR/98-10 6 (th e Rules) , state s tha t

application s ar e commence db y anotic e o f applicatio n settin g out , inte r alia , " acomplet e an dconcis e statemen t o f th e ground s intende dt o b e argued , includin g a referenc e t o an y statutor y provisio n o r rul e t o b e relie don. " Thi s rul e i s mean t

t o giv e aresponden t

th e opportunit y t o addres s th e ground s o f

revie w i n hi s affidavi t

an densur e n o on e i s take n b y surprise . 3 3 I n th e presen t

case , th e applicant s submitte di n thei r notice s o f applicatio n tha t

th e Commissione r

ha derre di n fac t

an di n law , aru i ha dbreache daprincipl e o f natura l justic e o r

procedura l fairness . Thi s i s n o doub t acrypti c way t o se t

ou t th e ground s o f review . I t reflects , unfortunately , apractic e tha t i s becomin g mor e an dmor e commo n - t o simpl y paraphras e th e tex t ofs . 18. 1 o f

th e Federa l Court s Ac t

a s th e ground s fo r

th e application . Suc ha practic e mus t

definitel y b e discouraged , aru i counse l shoul dstriv e t o particulariz e th e ground s the y inten dt o argu e t o conformt o th e spiri t o f th e Rules . Thi s woul dcertainl y hel p bothpartie s frame thei r argument s mor e precisel y fromth e outse t an deventuall y focu s th e debate .Page : 6 5 3 4 Havin g sai dthis , I amno t prepare dt o refus e considerin g th e constables ' argument s o n thi s basis . Firs t o f all , th e respondent s hav e no t provide dart

y evidenc e tendin g t o demonstrat e tha t the y wer e take n b y surpris e o r prejudice di n preparin g thei r recor do r submissions . I n ligh t

o f th e fac t tha t th e constables ' career s ar e a t stake , I woul dals o b e extremel y reluctan t t o preven t

the mfrom makin g al l th e submission s the y articulate di n thei r origina l memorandum . A dela y coul dhav e bee n grante di f th e respondent s fel t i t wa s necessary , bu t

non e wa s requeste dIndeed , counse l fo r th e respondent s di dno t

reall y pus htha t

poin t a t th e hearing . [83 ] h i th e presen t

appUcation , Ai r

Canada' s Counsel , at

th e hearing , expresse dth e reUef sought differenti y flxim tiiat

se t ou t i n eithe r Notic e o f Application . Ai r

Canad ano w want s th e whol e allocatio n o f

slot s proces s se t

aside , includin g th e 201 0 CCO A betwee n TP A an dPorter . It want s a ne w proces s begu n i n whic hTP A "consult s v^ath " Ai r Canad aTh e ground s for tiiis relief, a s argue d at th e hearing , wer e that

Au r Canad aha daright

t o b e consulte dessentiall y becaus e i t ha da "legitimat e expectation " that i t woul db e consulte dan dtha t slo t allocatio n decision s mad e i n it s absenc e ar e anullity . Further , Ai r Canad aargue s tha t

i t wa s unaware , unti l th e evidenc e was provide db y th e Respondent s i n th e secon dapplication , tha t ane w agreement , th e 201 0 CCOA , ha d bee n entere dinto . [84 ] ITi e Respondents , i n thei r writte n materia l an di n thei r argument , hav e me t

Ai r Canada' s argument s a s t o aright

t o b e consulte dan dha dlegitimat e expectation s tha t i t woul dbe . Therefore I wil l deal wit

hthem . [85 ] Ai r

Canad araise dothe r

arguments , includin g lac k o f prope r rieason s an dlac k

o f "formal " o r "substantive " reasonableness . Thes e ground s wer e not se t ou t i n it s Notic e o f

Applicatio n an donl y th e latter , "formal " an d"substantive " reasonableness , was raise dan dme t i n writte n an doral

### Page : 6 6

argument . I wU

l dea l wit hthes e arguments i n cas e of a n appeal , but

I will nonetheles s dismis s the m fo r lack o f aprope r pleading . X I Issu e #S : Wa s ther e a n obligatio n o n th e Toront o Por t Authority t o consul t

withAi r Canad abefore makin g th e "decisions " of December

24.200 9 an dApri l 9.2010 ? [86 ] The argumen

t mad e b y Air Canadain suppor

t o f it s allegatio n tha

t it shouldhave bee

n consultedbefor

e eithe r of th e tw o "decisions " wer

e mad e by TPA , i s convoluted . [87 ] Ai r Canadapoint s t o th e Worldwid e Schedule Guideline s formulatedb y lAT A which contain s provision s suc

ha s section 4. 6 t

o the effec t tha t wher e achang e of

level in the manne

r in whichslot s ar

e t o b e allocatedi s contemplated , "interestedpartie s shouldb e consulted" . Ai r Canada say s tha t TPA' s Decembe

r announcemen

t whichstatedtha

t a n "lATA-accreditedslot

co-ordinato

r "wouldshortl

y b e appointed " wa s a

n indication tha

t th e TP A wouldadher

e to lAT A guidelines . Further , Ai

r Canadasay s tha

t it s affiUate, Jazz , wa s offere d(bu t neve r signed ) adraf t CCO A by TP A i n 200 6 whic

hcontainedaprovision , article 5.4(f) , tha t Jaz z wouldacknowledge tha t the airpor t i s "a n lATA-constrainedairport" . Simila r languag e appears i n th e 200 5 CCO A betwee n Porte r an dTP A but no t i n th e 201 0 CCO

A between tiiose parties . [88 ] Th e Respondents argue tha

t it i s to o fa r astretcht o sa y tiiat TP A wa s in an

y wa y obligated to foUo w lAT A protocol . It

i s not amembe r o f lAT A andth e aiipor

t i s no t a n lAT A affiUate d aiiport . Further , the

y argue tha

t th e lAT A protoco l i s jus t

aguideline an

di n th e circumstance s onl

y users , an dnot prospectiv e users , o f

the airpor t ar e recommendedfo

r consultation . Ye

t further, th ePage : 6 7

referenc e i n adraf

t contract , neve r

signed , t o an affiliat

e o f Ai r Canad asevera l year s ag o t o lATA , an dth e referenc e i n th e Decembe r bulleti n t o a n lATA-accredite dslo t co-ordinator , d o no t

i n an y wa y giv e rise t o an y obligatio n assume db y th e TP A t o follo w lAT A protoco l no r t o an y reasonabl e expectatio n b y Ai r

Canad atha t

thi s woul db e done . [89 ] I hav e no t

se t out i n detai l othe r

references t o IA T A pointe dout b y Ai r Canada' s Counse l i n othe r TP A documents . Thos e document s wer e neve r see n b y Ai r

Canad ao r

an y affiliate before th e evidenc e wa s presente di n thes e proceedings , an dth e reference s are a s fleeting a s thos e i n th e document s discusse dabove . [90 ] Ther e clearl y was n o obUgatio n impose dupon , no r imdertake n by , TP A t o follo w rigorously o r at al l an y lAT A protocol . Di dAi r Canad ahav e "reasonabl e expectation " timt i t would ? [9 1 ] Th e doctrin e o f

reasonabl e o r

legitimat e expectatio n wa s considere drecenti y b y th e Suprem e Court

o f Canad amtw o decisions . Th e firs t i s Moun t Sina i Hospita l Centr e v Quebe c (Minister o f Healt han dSocia l Services) , 200 1 SC C 41 , [2001 ] 2 S.C.R . 28 1 i n whic hBinni e J for th e Cour t wrot e that

an existin g permi t

holde r wa s owe dadut

y o f faimes s b y th e permi t

issue r whe n modifie dpermit s wer e t o b e granted . A part y ha s aright t o procedura l faimes s dependen t o n th e natur e o f

tha t party' s interes t

an dth e natur e o f

th e powe r

exercise db y th e authority . Th e remedy , however , i s t o gran t procedura l relie f

eve n thoug hsuc hrelief

may result

i n substantiv e relie f Binni e J wrot e at

paragraph s 18,29,30,3 5 an d36 : 1 8 I f th e respondent s di dno t

hav e a"right " t o amodifie d permit , the y nevertheles s ha dadirec t financial interes t

i n th e outcom e o f

thei r explicatio n sufficient

t o trigge r

th e duty o f procedura l fairness . The y were , afte r

all , existin g permi t

holders .Page : 6 8 Thei r reques t wc ^ fo r permi t modifications . A s state db y L e Dai n J . i n Cardina l v . Directo r

o f Ken t Institution , supra , a t

p . 653 :

- Thi s Cour t

ha s affirme dtha t

ther e is , a s agenera l commo n la w principle , adut

y o f procedura l fairnes s lyin g o n every publi c authorit y makin g a n administrativ e decisio n whic hi s not o f alegislativ e natur e an dwhic haffect s th e rights , privilege s o r

interest s o f

a n individual. . 2 9 Unde r

ou r cas e la w th e availabilit y an dconten t o f procedura l fairnes s ar e generall y drive n b y th e natur e o f th e applicant' s interes t

an dth e natur e o f

th e powe r

exercise db y th e publi c authorit y i n relatio n t o tha t interest : Brow n aru i Evans , supra , p . 7-1 3 e t

seq. ; D . J . Mullan , "'Confinin g th e Reac ho f Legitimat e Expectations ' Cas e Cornment : Sunshin e Coas t Parent s fo r Frenc hv . Schoo l Distric t No . 4 6 (Sunshin e Coast) " (1991) , 4 4 Admin , L.R . 245 , a t

p . 248 . Th e docti-in e o f

legitimat e expectations , o n th e othe r

hand , look s t o th e conduc t o f th e [pag e 3 04 ] publi c authorit y i n th e exercis e o f tha t powe r (Ol dSt . Boniface , supra , a t p . 1204 ) includin g establishe dpractices , conduc t o r representation s tha i ca n b e characterize da s clear , unambiguou s an dunqualifie d(Brow n an dEvans , supra , a t p . 7-41) , The expectation s mus t

no t conflic t withth e publi c authority' s statutor y remi t 3 0 The doctrin e o f

legitimat e expectation s i s sometime s treate d a s afor mo f

estoppel , bu t

th e weigh t

o f authorit y an dprincipl e suggest s tha t

a n applican t

wh o relie s o n th e doctrin e o f legitimat e expectation s may show , bu t doe s no t necessaril y hav e t o show , tha t h e o r sh e wa s awar e o f

suc hconduct , o r

tha t i t wa s relie do n with detrimenta l results . Thi s i s becaus e th e focu s i s o n promotin g "regularity , predictability , an dcertaint y i n government' s dealin g wit hth e public" : S . A . d e Smith , H Wool f an dJ Jowell , Judicia l Revie w o f

Administrativ e Actio n (5t hed . 1995) , a t

p . 417 , t o whic h th e editor s add , a t

p . 426 , tha t

insistin g o n estoppel-typ e requirement s woul d

• involv e unfai r

discriminatio n betwee n thos e wh o wer e an dwer e no t

awar e o f th e representatio n an dwoul d benefi t th e well-informe do r

well-advised . I t

woul dals o encourag e undesirabl e administrativ e practic e b y to o readil y relievin g decision-maker s o f th e norma l consequence s o f thei r actions . Th e Hig hCour t

o f Australi aespouse s asimila r view :Page ; 6 9 But , mor e importantly , th e notio n o f legitimat e expectatio n i s no t dependen t

upo n an y principl e o f

estoppe l Whethe

r th e Ministe r ca n b e estoppe di n th e exercis e o f hi s discretio n i s anothe r question ; i t

wa s not aquestio n raise db y th e appellan t Legitimat e expectatio n doe s not depen dupo n th e knowledg e an dstat e o f

min do f th e individua l concerne d althoug hsuc ha n expectatio n may aris e fromth e conduc t o f a publi c authorit y toward s a n individual.. . (Haouche r

v . Ministe r

fo r Immigration , Loca l Governmen t an dEthni c Affair s (1990) , 19A.LD . 577 , perTooheyJ , a t p . 590 ) Se e als o Ministe r

o f Stat e fo r Immigratio n aru i Ethni c Affair s v . Teo h(1995) , 18 3 C.L.R . 27 3 (H.C.) . 3 5 I n affirmin g tha t

th e doctrin e o f

legitimat e expectation s i s limite dt o procedura l relief , i t mus t b e acknowledge dtha t

i n som e case s i t i s difficul t

t o distinguis hth e procedura l fromth e substantive . I n Bendahman e v . Canada , supra , fo r example , a majority o f

th e Federa l Cour t

o f Appea l considere dth e applicant' s clai mt o th e benefi t

o f arefuge e backlo g reductio n progra mt o b e procedura l (p . 33 ) wherea s th e dissentin g judg e considere dth e claime drelie f

t o b e substantiv e (p . 25) . A similarl y clos e cal l wa s mad e i n Canad a(Attorne y General ) v . Canad a(Commissione r o f th e Inquir y o n th e Bloo dSystem) , [1996 ] 3 F.C . 25 9 (T.D.) . A n undu e focu s o n forma l classijicatio n an dcategorizatio n o f power s a t th e expens e o f

broa dprinciple s flexibly applie dmay d o a disservic e here . The inquir y i s better ^ framedi n term s o f

th e underlyin g principl e mentione dearlier , namel y tha t broa dpubli c polic y i s pre-eminentl y fo r th e Ministe r

t o determine , not

th e courts . 3 6 The classificatio n o f relie f a s "substantiv e " howeve r shoul d b e mad e i n ligh t

o f th e principle dbasi s fo r

it s exclusio n rathe r tha n a s amatte r

o f form . Where , a s i n Bendahman e v . Canada , relie f ca n reasonabl y b e characterize da s procedura l i n ligh t o f th e underlyin g principl e o f

deferenc e o n matter s o f

substantiv e policy , the n generall y speakin g i t shoul dbe . [92 ] Th e matte r

wa s addresse dagai n b y th e Suprem e Court o f Canad atw o year s late r

m Canadia n Unio n o f

Publi c Employee s ( C U.P.E. ) v Ontari o (Ministe r o f Labour) , 200 3 SC C 29 ,Page : 7 0

[2003 ] 1 S.C.R . 53 9 wher e Binni e J fo r th e majorit

y (ther e wer e severa l i n dissent ) wrot e tiiat th e doctrin e o f

legitimat e expectation s require dtha t th e Court conside r whethe r ther e wer e estabhshe d practices , conduc t

o r representations tha t

coul db e characterize da s clear , unambiguou s an d unqualified . H e wrot e at

paragrap h131 : 13 1 The doctrin e o f

legitimat e expectatio n i s "an extensio n o f th e rule s o f

natura l justic e an dprocedura l fairness" : Referenc e r e Canad aAssistanc e Pla n (B.C.) , [1991 ] 2 SCR . 525 , a t p . 557 . I t look s t o th e conduc t

o f aMiniste r

o r othe r publi c authorit y i n th e exercis e o f

adiscretionar y powe r

includin g establishe dpractices , conduc t o r representation s tha t

ca n b e characterize da s clear , unambiguou s an dunqualifie dtha t ha s induce di n th e complainant s (her e th e unions ) areasonabl e expectatio n tha t the y wil l retai n abenefi t

o r b e consulte dbefor e acontrar y decisio n i s taken . T o b e "legitimate" , suc hexpectation s mus t no t conflic t with astati4tory duty . See : Ol dSt . Bonifac e Resident s Assn . Inc . v . Wmnipe g (City) , [1990]3SC R1170 ; Baker , supra ; Moun t Sinai , supra , a t

para . 29 ; Brow n an dEvans , supra , dtpara . 7:2431 . Wher e th e condition s fo r

it s applicatio n ar e satisfied , th e Cour t may gran t

appropriat e procedura l remedie s t o respon dt o th e "legitimat e " expectation . [93 ] I n th e presen t

case , I fin dn o clear , tmambiguou s o r unqualifie destabhshe dpractic e o r conduc t o r representation b y th e TPA . Notwithstandin g Ai r Canada' s Counsel' s abl e argument , ther e i s simpl y insufficient evidenc e upo n whic hthi s Court ca n fin dtha t

Ai r Canad aha dan y legitimat e expectatio n tha t i t woul db e consulte db y TP A befor e an y decisio n was mad e a s t o slo t allocation . [94 ] I ad dtw o matters . First , th e evidenc e i s clear that tiiroughout

th e relevant time perio dther e wer e meeting s an dconespondenc e witi i an dbetwee n TP A an dAi r Canada . Ai r

Canad aha s neve r bee n reluctan t

t o mak e it s view s know n t o th e TPA .Page : 7 1

[95 ] Th e secon dmatte r i s tha t Ai r Canad aha s provide dn o evidenc e a s t o wha t i t woul dsa y i f

a ta-oader reachin g consultatio n wa s t o b e Ordered , W e d o kno w tiiat i t want s mor e slots , includin g slot s at favourabl e times. I t

alread y tol dTP A tiiat. Ai r Canada' s Counsel , Ms . Batner , mad e a considerabl e presentatio n a s t o how , i n he r view , th e numbe r

o f slot s coul db e increased ; particularl y i f

adjustment s wer e mad e t o th e "quie t time" slots . I a mi n n o positio n t o evaluat e suc h submissions , eve n i f

relevant . Ther e i s n o evidenc e t o support thos e submissions . I hav e n o ide a whethe r th e submission s tak e int o accoun t a U th e relevan t

factor s an dconstraints . Ai r Canad aha s provide dn o evidenc e t o support thes e submission s an dn o evidenc e tha t thes e ar e th e submission s that i t woul dhav e mad e t o TPA , o r tha t i t was i n an y wa y preclude dfi-ommakin g thes e subntissions . X n Issu e #6 : Di dTP A "decisions" ' lac k "forma r o r ^'substantia Freasonableness ? [96 ] Ai r

Canada' s Counse l argu e tha t eac ho f th e TP A "decisions " at

issu e lac k

boti i "formal " an d"substantive " reasonableness . I hav e disntisse dthi s argumen t fo r failure t o plea dit , but

deal withi t anyway i n cas e o f

a n appeal . [97 ] Counse l argue s that th e Suprem e Court

o f Canad ai n Dtmsmui r

v Ne w Brunswick , 200 8 SC C 9 , [2008 ] 1 S.C.R . 19 0 establishe dne w ground s (no t standards ) fo r

judicia l review : adecisio n mus t b e both"formally " an d"substantively " reasonable . Referenc e i s mad e t o th e majority decisio n writte n b y Bastarach e an dLeBe l J J a t paragrap h47 : 4 7 Reasonablenes s i s adeferentia l standar danimate db y th e principl e tha t

underlie s th e developmen t o f th e tw o previou s standard s o f

reasonableness : certai n question s tha t com e befor e administrativ e tribunal s d o no t len dthemselve s t o on e specific .Page ; 7 2 particula r

result . Instead , the y ma y giv e ris e t o anumbe r o f possible , reasonabl e conclusions . Tribunal s hav e amargi n o f appreciatio n withi n th e rang e o f acceptabl e an drationa l solutions . A cour t conductin g arevie w fo r

reasonablenes s inquire s int o th e qualitie s tha t

mak e adecisio n reasonable , referrin g botht o th e proces s o f

articulatin g th e reason s an dt o outcomes . Injudicia l review , reasonablenes s i s concerne dmostl y wit hth e existenc e o f [page221 ] justification , transparenc y an dintelligibilit y withi n th e decision-makin g process . Bu t i t i s als o concerne dwithwhethe r th e decisio n fall s withi n arang e o f possible , acceptabl e outcome s whic har e defensibl e i n respec t o f th e fact s an dlaw . [98 ] I disagree . That

Court i s directin g it s min dt o astandard , not aground . Paragrap h4 7 begin s withth e word s "Reasonablenes s i s adeferential standard..,' " ParE^rap h4 8 begin s withth e words , "Th e mov e toward s asingl e reasonableness standard...^ ^ [99 ] What

tha t Court was addressin g i n paragr^ h4 7 whe n i t spok e o f "formal " reasonablenes s i s a s se t ou t i n th e secon dlas t

sentence , "...th e existenc e o f justification , transparenc y an d intelligibiUty" . What

that Court was addressin g whe n i t

use dth e wor d"outcomes " i s whether , a s se t ou t i n th e las t

sentenc e o f

paragrap h47 , th e decisio n "fall s withi n th e rang e o f possibl e acceptabl e outcomes. " [100 ] I n th e presen t

applications , th e Decembe r bulleti n i s clear , a s i s th e Aiai l buUetin . Boti i se t ou t wha t TP A intend s t o d o an dwhy ; i t iiitende dto , an dthe n did , appoin t aslo t co-ordinator . I t intende dto , an dthe n did , receiv e proposal s fromprospectiv e users , includin g Ai r Canada . [101 ] No t

articulate di n th e "pleadings" , bu t argued , wa s th e validity o f th e 201 0 CCO A betwee n TP A an dPorter . Ai r

Canad awas not

previousl y advise dtha t

thi s woul db e entere dint o b y thos e parties . It di dnot hav e aright

o r expectatio n t o b e advise dThat was acommercia l busines sPage : 7 3

decisio n tha t

TP A wa s entitie dt o make . TPA' s action s wer e withi n th e acceptabl e rang e o f reasonabl e action s an dshoul dno t b e se t asid e o n th e assumption , whic hI hav e foun dt o b e otherwise , tha t

TPA i s subjec t

t o judicia l review,

X mIssu e #7 : Di dth e TP A hav e an y obligatio n t o provid e "reasons^ ' fo r it s decisio n and , i f reason s wer e provided , wer e the y adequate ? [102 ] I n addressm g tins argumen t I repeat tha t i t ha s bee n dismisse dfor

failure t o "plead " i t

an d becaus e th e TP A i s not

subjec t t o judicia l revie w i n thi s respect . Nonetheless , i n cas e o f an appeal , I wil l addres s it . [ 103 ] Th e "duty " t o provid e reason s rest s o n \\*ia t th e Suprem e Court

o f Canad asai di n Bake r

v Canad a(Minister

o f Citizenshi p otT

dImmigration) , [1999 ] 2 SCR . 81 7 wher e L'Heureux-Dub ^ J for th e Court wrot e at paragraph s 4 3 an d44 : 4 3 I n m

y opinion , i t

i s no w appropriat e t o recogniz e that , i n certai n circumstances , th e duty o f procedura l fairnes s wil l requir e th e provisio n o f

awritte n explanatio n fo r adecision . Th e stron g argument s demonstratin g th e advantage s o f writte n reason s sugges t that , i n case s suc ha s thi s wher e th e decisio n ha s importan t significanc e fo r

th e individual , whe n ther e i s astatutor y righ t o f appeal , o r

i n othe r circumstances , som e for mo f reason s shoul db e required . Thi s requiremen t ha s bee n developin g i n th e commo n la w elsewhere . The circumstance s o f th e cas e a t

bar , i n m

y opinion , constitut e on e o f th e situation s wher e reason s ar e necessary . The profoun dimportanc e o f a n H& C decisio n t o thos e affected , a s wit

hthos e a t issu e i n Orlowski , Cunningham , an d Doody , militate s i n favou r o f arequiremen t

tha t reason s b e provided . I t

woul db e unfai r

jd r aperso n subjec t

t o adecisio n suc h a s thi s on e whic hi s s o critica l t o thei r futur e no t

t o b e tol dwhy th e resul t wa s reached .

### Page : 74 4 4 I n m

y view , however , th e reason s requiremen t wa s fulfille di n thi s cas e sinc e th e appellan t wa s provide dwit

hth e note s o f

Office r Lorenz . The note s Wer

e give n t o Ms . Bake r

whe n he r counse l aske d fo r reasons . Becaus e o f

this , an dbecaus e ther e i s n o othe r recor d o f th e reason s fo r

makin g th e decision , th e note s o f th e subordinat e reviewin g office

r shoul db e taken , b y inference , t o b e th e reason s fo r decision . Acceptin g document s suc ha s thes e note s a s sufficient reason s i s par t

o f th e flexibility tha t

i s necessary , a s emphasize db y Macdonal dan dLametti , supra , whe n court s evaluat e th e requirement s o f

th e dut y o f fairnes s withrecognitio n o f th e day-to

da y realitie s o f

administrativ e agencie s an dth e man y way s i n whic hth e value s underlyin g th e principle s o f procedura l faimes s [page849 ] ca n b e assured . I t uphold s th e principl e tha t individual s ar e entitle dt o fai r

procedure s an dope n decision-making , bu t recognize s tha t

i n th e administrativ e context , thi s transparenc y may tak e plac e i n variou s ways , I conclud e tha t th e note s o f

Office r Loren z satisf

y th e requiremen t

fo r reason s unde r

th e dut y o f procedura l fairnes s i n thi s case , an dthe y wi U b e take n t o b e th e reason s fo r

decision . [104 ] Wha t

mus t b e recognize di s tha t

tiie "duty " t o provid e "reasons " arise s onl y i n "certai n circumstances " an dthat

duty may b e fulfilled , for instance , b y tiie simpl e provisio n o f notes . Thos e certai n circumstance s may aris e wher e tiiere i s alegislate dprovisio n tha t reasons shoul db e provide dan dma y als o aris e wher e th e proces s i s adjudicativ e o r quasi-adjudicative . However , ^ t circumstance s ar e quit e different whe n dealin g witi i noima l commercia l transaction s suc ha s tiiose at issu e here . Ther e i s n o "duty " t o provid e person s potentiall y intereste dwith"reasons " fo r every "decision " made . Transaction s woiti dgrin dt o ahal t [105 ] N o reason s wer e requiredhere .

### Page : 7 5

XrVIssue#8 ; Wer e th e "decisions " mad e fo r a n imprope r

purpose ? [106 ] Ai r Canadaargue s tha

t TPA , throughou

t the process , favouredPorter , an dtha t it s decision s wer e mad e t o give Porte

r a n unfai r advantag e respecting the us e o f th e BBTCA , [ 107 ] Air Canadapoint s ou

t tha t th e letter s providedb y th e Competition Burea u in 200 3 wer

e basedo n th e premis e tha

t Porte r wouldbe give

n exclusivit

y a t BBTCA onl

y fo r alimitedperio dof time , an dtha t time ha s no w gon

e by . Porte r wa s initiall

y grantedup t o 11 2 slots which , b y the 201 0 CCOA , wer

e effectivel y grandfathered . Porte

r wa s als o given , i

n the 200 5 CCOA , a"fair " shar e o f ne w slots . Porte

r wa s give n 4 5 of th e 9 0 new slot s in th e 201 0 CCOA , Porte r continue s t

o enjo y almos t all o f tiie prim e time slots . [ 108] TP A argue s tha

t i t mad e aprope r busines s decision . I

t sough t advic e fromsources , including Jorda n an dACL ; an dbasedon tha

t advice , while not

foHovrin g ever y piec e o f advice , it mad e rational , unbiasedbusines s decisions , [109 ] Porte

r argue s tha t Ai r Canadaor it s afSIiate s essentially abandonedthe BBTCA , preferring t o ru n it s Toront

o operation s fromPearson aiipor t wher e i t i s the majo

r airline an dPorte r doe s not operate . Onl

y whe n Porte r bega n making asucces s of

BBTC A didAu r Canadaws mt o ge

t bac k in . Porte r warn s tha t caution shouldb e exercisedi n dealing wit

hAi r Canadagive

n the pas t histor y o f neglecting th e BBTC

A an dsqueezing ou

t competition there .Page ; 7 6

[110 ] I t was no t unreasonabl e fo

r TP A t o grandfather

Porter' s existin g slots , no r was i t unreasonabl e t o interpre t

a"fair " proportio n o f

aUocatio n o f

ne w slot s t o b e one-hal f

o f thos e slots . Ther e i s n o evidenc e before m e t o sugges t that TP A an dPorte r

wer e doin g anythin g mor e tha n engagm g i n noimal , reasonabl e commercial activity . A s I hav e found , ther e i s n o expectatio n that Ai r Canad ashoul dhav e i n som e way bee n consttite ddurin g th e process . [Ill ] Th e sihiation , whil e no t identica l to , i s aki n t o tiiat considere db y tiie Federa l Court o f Appeal i n Irvin g Shipbuildin g wher e Evan s J , A . fo r tiie Cour t wrot e at paragrap h46 : 4 6 Th e contex t

o f th e presen t

disput e i s essentiall y commercial , despit e th e fac t

tha t th e Governmen t

i s th e purchaser . PWGS C ha s mad e th e contrac t

pursuan t t o astatutor y powe r

an dth e good s an d service s purchase dar e relate dt o nationa l defence . I n m y view , tt wil l normall y b e inappropriat e t o impor t int o apredominantl y commercia l relationship , governe db y contract , apubli c la w duty develope di n th e contex t

o f th e performanc e o f

governmenta l function s pursuan t

t o power s derive dsolel y fromstatute , [112 ] I t i s not for thi s Court

t o rewrit e o r

se t asid e wha t

i s i n reality acommercia l contrac t simpl y becaus e on e o f

tiie prospectiv e partie s beUeve s i t shoul dhav e gotte n abette r deal . CONCLUSION S AN P COST S [113 ] h i conclusion , boti i apphcation s v M b e dismissed . Th e TP A i s not actin g a s a"federal board , commissio n o r

other tribunal " i n th e circumstance s here ; i t mad e n o "decision " that

i s subjec t t o judicia l review . Ai r

Canad aha dn o right

o r legitimat e expectatio n t o b e consulte dbefore TP A mad e slo t commitment s t o Porte r

o r otherwise .

### Page ; 7 7

[114 ] Counse

l a t the hearin g advisedtha

t the partie s ma

y well agree a s t o th e dispositio n o f costs . I will therefor

e leave tiiat

matte r to them , provide dhoweve

r tha t i f they cannot

agree within a reasonable perio dan

y one or mor e o f the mmay , by ashor

t lette r addressedt o me , see

k afiurther orde r an ddirection s a s to costs .

### Page ; 7 8 JUDGMEN T FO RTH E REASON S PROVIDED THI S COUR T ORDER S AN D ADJUDGE S that ; 1 - Thes e application s ar e dismissed ; an

d 2 . The partie s ar

e to agree a s to cost s witiiin areasonable time, failing whichan y of tiiemma y by ashor

t lette r appl y t o tins Cour

t fo r a n orde r an ddirection s i n tiiat respect .

_"Roge r T.Hughes " Judg e I HEREB YCti^i'ip / ;ha ; i- t ^^^ i documen t i s a tru e cop yo f th e origina l issue d ou t o

f/ file d i n fii e Cour

t o n ttie da yof- ^

? 1 yftI O AD.20 . Date d thfe.... . ^ M ^Jf l 2Q _FEDERA LCOUR T SOLICITOR S O FRECOR D DOCKET : STYL E O FCAUSE : PLAC E O FHEARING : DAT E O FHEARING : REASON S FO RJUDGMEN T AN D JUDGMENT ; DATED : APPEARANCES : Nei l Finkelstei n Sari t E . Batne r Brando n Kai n Byro n Sha w Pete r K . Dood y CoUee n M . Shanno n Christiaan A . Jordaa n Robert L . Armstion g Oreste s Pasparaki s Gre g Shealie n T-488-10/T-692-1 0 AI RCANAD A v . TORONT O POR T AUTHORIT Y AN D PORTE RAIRLINE S INC . Vancouver , B C Jul y 6-8,201 0 HUGHE S J . Jul y 21 , 201 0

FO RTH E APPLICAN T

FO RTH E RESPONDEN T Toront o Port

Authority FO RTH E RESPONDEN T Porte r Airline s Inc . SOLICITOR S O FRECORD : McCarth y Tetraul t

LL P Barrister s & Solicitor s Toronto , O N Borde n Ladne r

Gervai s LL P Barrister s & Solicitor s Toronto , O N Ogilv y Renaul t

LL P Barrister s & Soticitor s Toronto , O N FO RTH E APPLICAN T

FO RTH E RESPONDEN T Toront o Port

Authority FO RTH E RESPONDEN T Porte r AirUne s hic .Exhibi t C Toront o Por

t Authority pres s releas e (Marc h4 , 2011 ) 'Ai r Canad at o Begi n Servic e fromBill y Bisho p May 1 'Toront o Port

Authority Pag e 1 o f 1

Noro ^ Co'porat a Airpo» t Por t Marin. a Medi a Contac t HaE^a a 

# ira Pres s Release s r . a- '

t Pas t relea ! Fo rImmediat e Releas e Ai rCanad a t o Begi n Servic e fro m Bill yBisho p Ma y1 Toront o (Marc h 4 , 2011 ) - Th e Toront o Port Authorit ytoda yannounce d tha t Ai rCanad a an d th e Cit yCentr e Ternnina l Corporatio n (CCTC) , whic h own s th e termina l buildin g a t th e popula rBill yBisho p Airport , hav e reache d a n agreemen t o n a termina l leas e arrangemen t tha t wil l se e Ai rCanad a star t operation s b yMa y1 , 2011 . Th e agreemen t wa s require d forth e Toront o Port Authority , whic h run s th e airport , t o finalis e it s operatin g agreemen t wit h Ai rCanada . Upo n th e completio n o f it s termina l leas e agreement , Ai rCanad a finalize d it s operatin g agreemen t wit h th e TPA . "W e ar e veryplease d tha t thes e negotiation s hav e t)ee n successful, " TP ACE O an d Presiden t Geof f Wilso n sai d 'Openin g th e airpor t t o ne wcarrier s i s a ke yelemen t o f ou rlong-ter m busines s plan , an d can onl yserv e th e bes t interest s o f th e passenger s wh o lov e th e eas yacces s o f ou rdowntow n airport. " -3 0 -

Medi a Contac t Suzann a Birchwood , Publi cAffairs , TP A 41 6 86 3 203 6 (w)/41 6 31 7 640 5 (mobile )

Cariad S

http://www.torontoport.com/PortAuthority/media_content.asp?id=51 0 3/7/20 1Exhibi t D Ai r Canad apres s releas e (Marc h4 , 2011 ) "Ai r Canad aAnnounce s May 1 Launc hDat e for Toront o City Centr e Service "AI RCANAD A ANNOUNCE S MAY 1 LAUNC H DAT E FO RTORONT O CIT Y CENT.. . Pag e 1 o f 1 

### AI R CANAD Am

Boo k Trave l Manag e m yBooking s Specia l Offer s Canadia n Editio n | Contac t U s Informatio n & Service s 

## Medi a Centr e New s Release s

< < [Bac k t o New s Releases ! AI R CANAD AANNOUNCE S MA Y 1 LAUNC H DAT E FO R TORONT O CIT Y CENTR E SERVIC E MONTREAL , Marc h 4 /CN W Telbec/ - Ai rCanad a announce d toda ytha t i t wil l commenc e servic e fro m th e Toront o Island' s Bill yBisho p Airpor t o n Ma y1 , 201 1 followin g th e conclusio n o f a termina l agreemen t wit h Cit yCentr e Termina l Corp. , th e airpor t termina l owne d b yPorte rAviatio n Holding s Inc . Ai rCanada' s initia l schedul e wil l provid e u p t o 1 5 dail ynon-sto p retur n flight s betwee n downtow n Toront o an d Montrea l Trudea u Internationa l Airport . "Ai rCanad a i s extremel yplease d t o retur n t o Toront o Islan d an d expan d th e rang e o f trave l option s fo rou rcustomers . Thi s uniqu e servic e betwee n downtow n Toront o an d Montrea l wil l provid e mor e choic e an d adde d convenienc e fo rou rcustomer s travellin g betwee n Canada' s tw o larges t cities, " sai d Be n Smith , Executiv e Vice-Presiden t an d Chie f Commercia l Officer . Ticl<et s fo rAi rCanada' s Toront o Islan d flight s wil l g o o n sal e Marc h 7 , 2011 . Th e servic e wil l us e state-of-the-ar t Bombardie rDas h 8 Q-40 0 aircraf t operate d b ySkyRegiona l Airline s Inc. , a n associate d compan yo f Skyservic e Busines s Aviation . Ai rCanad a i s Canada' s larges t domesti c an d internationa l full-servic e airlin e providin g schedule d an d charte rai rtransportatio n fo rpassenger s an d carg o fro m 6 0 communitie s larg e an d smal l acros s Canad a t o mor e tha n 17 5 destination s o n fiv e continents . Canada' s fla g carrie ri s th e 15t h larges t commercia l airlin e i n th e worl d an d serve s 3 1 millio n customer s annually . Ai rCanad a i s a foundin g membe ro f Sta rAlliance , th e world' s mos t comprehensiv e ai rtransportatio n networ k servin g 1,17 2 airport s i n 18 1 countries . Ai r Canad a customer s ca n collec t Aeropla n mile s fo rfutur e reward s throug h Canada' s leadin g loyalt yprogram , an d To p Tie rmember s enjo yreciproca l frequen t flye rbenefit s includin g loung e an d priorit yservices . I Prin t ffil Emai l tt i RS S O SHAR

E rfgg,;

http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=42 0 3/4/20 1