TATC File No. Q-2939-34
MoT File No. N5504-50956
TRANSPORTATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL OF CANADA
Jacques Lévesque, Applicant
- and -
Minister of Transport, Respondent
Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2, s. 7.7
Canadian Aviation Regulations, SOR/96-433, s. 406.22
Carole Anne Soucy
Decision: November 18, 2004
The applicant admitted all material elements of the offence alleged by the Minister and provided no defence. The contravention is confirmed, as is the monetary penalty of $500. The said amount, payable to the Receiver General for Canada, must be received by the Tribunal within thirty-five (35) days of service of this determination.
A review hearing on the above matter was held July 20, 2004, at the courthouse in Sept-Îles, Québec.
The applicant is president and chief flight instructor of the company 2431-9154 Québec inc. operating under the business name Eider Aviation or Sept-Îles Aviation enr.
The company holds a flight training unit operator certificate.
Mr. Lévesque, as chief flight instructor, is responsible for maintaining a current copy of training publications, charts, maps and any other material required for the ground instruction and flight training of trainees.
On May 21, 2003, in Sept-Îles, the applicant did not ensure that the Enroute low altitude charts and the Canada Air Pilot instrument procedures were maintained for the ground instruction and flight training of trainees.
Further to this contravention of section 406.22 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs), a notice of assessment of monetary penalty was sent on September 2, 2003, to Mr. Lévesque.
Schedule A of the said notice reads as follows:
You have contravened section 406.22 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations;
On May 21, 2003, at Sept-Îles, you did not carry out the responsibilities of the position of chief flight instructor of 2431-9154 Québec Inc. operating under the business name Eider Aviation or Sept-Îles Aviation Enr., to wit: you did not ensure that the Enroute Low Altitude charts and the Canada Air Pilot instrument procedures were maintained for the ground instruction and flight training of trainees, in accordance with paragraph 426.22(5)(i) of the Personnel Licensing and Training Standard respecting Flight Training Units.
Payment was due October 8, 2003. On October 7, 2003, Mr. Jacques Lévesque sent the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada an application for review in respect of this matter. The hearing date had been set for January 23, 2004, and, at the applicant's request, was postponed, along with another case also involving Mr. Lévesque, until July 20 and 21, 2004. Given the short duration of the arguments, this matter proceeded on July 20, 2004.
The Personnel Licensing and Training Standard respecting Flight Training Units referred to in Part IV of the CARs:
426. 22 Requirements for Chief Flight Instructor
(5) A person who is appointed as Chief Flight Instructor for a flight training unit identified in subsection (1) shall be responsible for:
(i) maintaining a current copy of training publications, charts, maps and any other material required for the ground instruction and flight training of trainees;
EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
The applicant admitted all the facts, but disputed the monetary penalty.
Mr. Tamborriello filed in evidence a copy of the relevant pages of the Inspection and Audit (Checklists) Manual as Exhibit M-1. This document contains information about the company and the inspection date, i.e., February 25, 2003. It also contains a Corrective Action Form detailing the action to be taken immediately. Mr. Lévesque accepted these facts by signing the document on May 1, 2003. A follow-up on May 21, 2003, showed that, despite the time lapse, the situation was still the same.
Regarding the amount of the monetary penalty, Mr. Tamborriello argued that this is determined in accordance with the Aviation Enforcement Manual, a reference used in the Department of Transport to ensure that penalties are uniform and fair. In looking at section 406.22, we note that for a first offence the amount is $500. He also argued the safety aspect surrounding regulatory compliance.
Mr. Lévesque provided no defence.
DISCUSSION AND REASONS
Considering the documentary evidence;
Considering the applicant's admission of all material elements of the offence alleged by the Minister;
Considering the fact that the applicant provided no defence;
Considering the fact that the applicant presented no evidence of mitigating circumstance allowing me to reduce the penalty;
Considering the fact that the Minister used the usual applicable standards, following the recommendations of the CARs and the Aviation Enforcement Manual;
I must therefore confirm the Minister's decision.
The applicant admitted all material evidence of the offence alleged by the Minister and provided no defence. The contravention is therefore confirmed, as is the monetary penalty of $500.
Carole Anne Soucy
Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada
- Date modified: