Canada ( Attorney General ) v. Beingessner
T-590-95
Rothstein J.
31/5/96
7 pp.
Application for judicial review of Civil Aviation Tribunal's review of Transport Canada Examiner's decision to fail pilots on Pilot Proficiency Check (PPC)-Applicant arguing under Aeronautics Act, s. 7.1 Tribunal only has jurisdiction to review suspension or cancellation of Canadian aviation document by Minister-Decision to fail pilot on PPC not amounting to suspension or cancellation of Canadian aviation document-Canadian aviation document defined in Aeronautics Act, s. 3(1) as "any licence, permit, accreditation, certificate or other document issued by the Minister under Part I to . . . any person"-S. 6.6 providing "In section 6.7 to 7.2 'Canadian aviation document' includes any privilege accorded by a civil aviation document"-Loss of privilege to fly A-320 aircraft constituting suspension of Canadian aviation document reviewable by Tribunal-Minister cannot rely upon own failure to strictly comply with notice provisions to claim no suspension-Minister also arguing Tribunal functus officio as had earlier refused to review when advised by Transport Canada one respondent's pilot licence not suspended-Decision by Tribunal to refuse consideration of earlier application for review not made in accordance with statute and had no effect-Therefore open to parties to make representations to Tribunal on effect of Minister's action in failing respondent on PPC and to Tribunal to decide it had jurisdiction-On matter of policy considerations, whether decision to fail pilot on PPC should be reviewable by Tribunal not for Court to decide-Court's role to interpret applicable legislation and open to Parliament or Governor in Council to make appropriate legislative change-Aeronautics Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-2, ss. 3(1) (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 33, ss. 1, 6.6 (as enacted idem), 7.1 (as enacted idem)).