[Indexed as: Bay of Fundy Inshore Fisherman's Assn. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Environment)]

摘要

4 The motion for a stay is denied. 5 The Association needed to show evidence that the deployment of the turbines now would result in harm that would happen before the judicial review hearing resolves the legal issues and that the harm would persist after that. There are two kinds of harm that might be considered. The first is actual harm to the environment itself. There is no evidence of what kind of environmental damage would occur up to February 2017. And, there is no evidence as to whether or not any environmental damage would be permanent or temporary. 6 The second kind of harm is the permanent loss of the opportunity to establish baseline data. Once the turbines are in the water, there will never again be a chance to study and document what the environment of the area was like before their deployment so it can be compared to the situation afterward. The logic of that statement is irrefutable. Even if the turbines had no effect at all that would be the case. 7 But that presumes that the study and documentation done up to this point has been inadequate. It also presumes that there can be reliable "baseline" data for a dynamic environment like the Bay of Fundy. As my colleague Justice Wood has said, the court does not act as an "academy of science" purporting to decide which of the experts is right or more right. The scientists differ on the issue of the baseline. 8 The Assciation has not shown on a practical level how the deployment of the test turbines, with the required environmental monitoring, between now and February 2017 would prevent future studies from getting information needed to compare the environment before deployment and after deployment.