Date: 20001017
Docket: A-669-99
EVANS J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
NUNAVUT TUNNGAVIK INC.
Appellant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on Wednesday, October 17, 2000.
Judgment delivered Orally from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario
on Wednesday, October 17, 2000.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY: EVANS J.A.
Date: 20001017
Docket: A-669-99
EVANS J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
NUNAVUT TUNNGAVIK INC.
Appellant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario
on Tuesday, October 17, 2000)
EVANS J.A.
| [1] This is an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division, dated September 30, 1999, dismissing an application for judicial review to set aside a decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, dated June 9, 1998, which made a five-year allocation of licences for the Arctic turbot fishery off Baffin Island. |
| [2] In spite of the able argument of counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that this appeal cannot succeed. |
| [3] It is clear to us that the meaning of "special consideration", and the principles of adjacency and economic dependency in the context of Article 15.3.7 of the Agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada has already been determined by this Court in Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) [1998] 4 F.C. 405 (F.C.A.). We see no reason to disagree with the conclusion already reached by this Court on these issues. |
| [4] In our view, because of the classically polycentric nature of the allocation of a fixed quota among competing group of fishers, the proper standard of review of the exercise of the Minister's discretion is patent unreasonableness. The Minister's decision easily withstands that test. The decision has a rational basis, because it was open to the Minister to determine the quota by reference to quotas historically allocated for turbot fishing in Davis Strait, rather than to the allocation of quotas in other zones in the Atlantic fishery. Since the appellant's quota in the turbot fishery has increased over the years, both absolutely and relatively, it cannot be said that the Minister had no regard to the adjacency and economic dependency principles. |
| [5] The Judge below carefully examined the Minister's decision, and found that he had given due consideration to the principles of adjacency and economic dependency, as interpreted in the previous decision of this Court. We agree with his conclusions of law and with his findings of fact, and see no reason to interfere with his decision. |
| [6] For these reasons the appeal will be dismissed with costs. |
"John M. Evans"
J.A.
Email this Content