AIR LAW |
Hudgin v. Canada (Attorney General)
A-101-01
2002 FCA 102, Evans J.A.
14/3/02
7 pp.
Appeal from F.C.T.D. decision ((2001), 199 F.T.R. 312) dismissing application for judicial review of decision by Appeal Panel of Civil Aviation Tribunal--Appeal Panel confirming penalty of $250 imposed under Aeronautics Act, s. 7.7 by Minister of Transport on appellant for issuing air traffic control instruction in breach of relevant standard--Air traffic controller-trainee at Dorval Airport instructing aircraft pilot to use taxiway B2 and to cross runway 28, authorizing another aircraft to take off from same runway--Trainee under supervision of appellant who was air traffic controller on duty --Instruction in fact given by trainee--Appeal turning on interpretation of Canadian Aviation Regulations, s. 801.01(2) --Instruction given not in accordance with separation standards--Whether "an aircraft traffic controller issues an air traffic control instruction" within meaning of provision, when instruction in question given by trainee under supervision of air traffic controller on duty--Appeal Panel's decision appellant breached provision unreasonable, therefore erroneous in law, as only air traffic control instruction given by another person, namely trainee--Minister failing to prove appellant committed actus reus of offence with which charged --Nothing in Regulation, in any more general legal principle, whereby action of employee can be deemed to be that of another--Appellant's admissions he was "responsible" for trainee's actions, under duty to monitor them, immaterial in proceeding to determine whether in breach of statutory duty not to issue improper instruction--No rational basis for Appeal Panel's conclusion--Nothing precluding possibility disciplinary proceedings could be brought herein--Appeal allowed--Aeronautics Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-2, s. 7.7 (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 33, s.1; as am. by S.C. 1992, c. 4, s. 20)--Canadian Aviation Regulations, SOR/96-433, s. 801.01(2).