Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction of the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) over the matter was the central legal issue.

• The Federal Court examined whether ADM’s judicial review application was procedurally compliant under section 18 of the Federal Courts Act.

• Parties disagreed over whether a constitutional question had been properly raised in accordance with section 57.

• The Court assessed whether the CTA exceeded its authority in rendering the original decision.

• Procedural fairness, including the opportunity to file additional submissions, was reviewed.

• The Federal Court ultimately found no errors justifying intervention and dismissed the application with costs.

Facts and outcome of the case

Aéroports de Montréal (ADM) filed an application for judicial review on November 30, 2022, challenging a decision issued by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) on November 2, 2022. The primary issue in dispute was whether the CTA had exceeded its jurisdiction in making a decision that impacted ADM’s operations. The matter was brought under section 18 of the Federal Courts Act, which allows parties to seek review of decisions by federal administrative tribunals.

Over the course of 2023 and 2024, several procedural steps took place. The court held hearings in Montreal on November 27, 2023, and March 26, 2024, presided over by Justice Roy. These hearings were conducted via videoconference and addressed both factual and jurisdictional matters. During proceedings, the Court invited parties to make additional written submissions specifically focused on whether the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada (TATC) had jurisdiction over the issues raised. ADM was represented by Me Elizabeth Cullen, while the CTA was represented by several legal counsel over time, including Me Gabrielle Fortier-Cofsky and Me Andray Renaud.

Multiple procedural exchanges occurred, including changes in legal representation and correspondence over the proper filing of constitutional questions under section 57 of the Federal Courts Act. The parties submitted additional legal arguments in December 2023 and June 2024, following Court directives. These included notes and authorities, as well as responses to issues related to the jurisdictional competence of the tribunal in question.

The Court rendered its final decision on May 7, 2025. Justice Roy dismissed ADM’s application for judicial review. The judgment confirmed that the CTA had acted within its jurisdiction and that there was no basis to overturn its decision. The Court found no procedural irregularities or substantive legal errors warranting judicial intervention. In addition to dismissing the application, the Court ordered ADM to pay the CTA $5,000 in legal costs, which included disbursements and applicable taxes. The judgment was recorded as final and entered in the official court register.

This outcome reinforces the authority of the CTA in exercising its regulatory responsibilities and highlights the importance of complying with statutory procedures when seeking judicial review. The ruling also clarifies expectations around the proper framing of constitutional issues and the standard for judicial intervention in administrative decisions.