In October 2006, Roger Tasse released his report of his review of the Toronto Port Authority.  He said this about the Tripartite Agreement.  The Agreement is a contract that legally binds its parties, the federal government, the TPA and the City.  As recently as last month, the TPA insisted that it was adhering to all its obligations under the Tripartite Agreement. 

One of the TPA’s obligations under the Agreement is to make the airport available for general aviation and limited commercial STOL service operations.  The Agreement defines limited commercial STOL service as a government licenced service using short takeoff and landing (STOL) aircraft operated in a manner compatible with the airport’s capacity and capability as shown under Section 14. 

Section 14, however, does not put a number to the term limited.  Instead, it provides a Noise Exposure Factor (NEF).  The NEF includes such things as the estimated total number of aircraft operations, the estimated number of operations for each aircraft type, runway use and flight paths followed.  Unfortunately, the NEF doesn’t take into account other noise that is vital to the airport’s operations: noise generated by engine run-ups and anti-bird cannon, helicopters and floatplanes, for example. 

A map of the area around the airport with various NEF contours is generated from the estimates of a selected number of noise sources.  As long as the number of arriving and departing flights falls within those contours, there appears no limit to the number that defines limited commercial STOL service. 

This certainly seems the case for Transport Canada, the body responsible for updating the island airport’s NEF.  The Tripartite Agreement requires Transport Canada to update the airport’s NEF contours annually.  The last Transport Canada official NEF calculation, according to the TPA’s consultants Seypher:Mueller, was done in 1990.  Perhaps the TPA overlooked this requirement both in the Agreement and the reference to it in the Seypher:Mueller study that the TPA commissioned.  Nevertheless, the TPA insists that it is adhering to all its obligations under the Tripartite Agreement even if its parent, Transport Canada, isn’t.

There appears to be one other problem with the NEF contours currently in use.  The Seypher:Mueller report states that the source of Transport Canada’s Dash-8 (DHC8) custom noise profile information for its 1990 study can not be verified.  This single statement raises an interesting question.  Was Transport Canada aware that the noise profile for the 1990 variety Dash-8 exceeded the noise limits stated in the Agreement but went ahead and used them anyway rather than prohibiting all Dash-8s from the airport?  If this was the case, was the TPA complicit?

On a final note, the Agreement contains another section that applies to the TPA.  The section titled NUISANCE, Paragraph 11 (1) reads The Lessee shall not do, suffer or permit to be done any act or thing upon or above the demised premises which is or would constitute a nuisance to the occupiers of any lands or premises adjoining or in the vicinity of the demised premises.  Tell the nearby, harried residents that the TPA is adhering to all its obligations under the Tripartite Agreement, especially when it allows engine run-ups and calls them normal activity. 

Bob Kotyk