Joe,

Thank you for your questions.

Is the CCOA a part of the Tripartite agreement, or, is it a stand alone document between Porter and the TPA?

The CCOA is a stand alone agreement.  However, it, like any other agreement or activity concerning operations at the airport, must comply with the Tripartite Agreement.  As an analogy, think of the Tripartite Agreement as the master lease and anything else to do with the airport as a sub-lease.  Nevertheless, below is one instance where the Toronto Port Authority has not complied.

Here is what the Tasse Report says about the Tripartite Agreement with regard to the settlement between the TPA and REGCO, one of Porter’s investors.

“In the Tripartite Agreement the TPA is required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that any contracts entered into in respect of the TCCA contain clauses that permit the closure of the airport and ensure that no liability flows from such a decision. The agreement with RegCo entered into as a result of the settlement contains no such clause.”

In other words, the TPA chose to ignore a clause in the Tripartite Agreement that bound them legally and Transport Canada appears to have backed them.

If the CCOA is not constrained by the TRI agreement, it would be foolish for the TPA to hold Porter to the lower number of flights.

The lower number of daily movements (120) came from the Tripartite Amending agreement between the City and the TPA as a condition of the City giving approval for the bridge to go ahead.  City Council agreed to the amendments at its special meeting of November 28/29, 2002. 

The lager number (167) came from consultants connected to the TPA.  Their analysis data is dated October 18, 2002.  This was six weeks before City Council gave its ok to the bridge and the amendments to the tripartite agreement. That number was not disclosed to City Council.

At that time and up to the present, Transport Canada has not conducted an NEF analysis that shows what the limit is.

With respect to helicopter movements, do the numbers quoted include training flights?

The Tripartite Agreement, Section 35 (1) (a) states, “the total number of all helicopter movements has exceeded four thousand (4,000);” I believe the key word is ‘all’.  The Agreement does not differentiate between training flights and other flights.

As for helicopter flight paths, on two occasions the City has requested Transport Canada specify flight paths for all helicopters flying two or from the Island Airport.  Elaine Baxter-Trahair, Waterfront Project Director, City of Toronto wrote requests to Debra Taylor, Regional Director General – Ontario, Transport Canada on March 1, 2006 and again on April 25, 2008. 

In the latter response dated June 3, 2008 Ms Taylor responded with the following.  “Please be advised that in response to your request, Transport Canada will look into the establishment of specified helicopter paths in accordance with the Tripartite Agreement.  We will keep you informed of our progress over the next few months.”

A year has passed since Ms Taylor’s letter.  Transport Canada has not specified helicopter flight paths.  Ms Baxter-Trahair did hear from Mr. Michael Stephenson, Regional Director General – Ontario, Transport Canada in May.  He wrote that helicopter movements would not be included in the new NEF study.  It appears that both Ms Taylor and Mr. Stephenson are willing to ignore sections of the Tripartite Agreement that do not fit into Transport Canada’s plans for the airport.

One possible reason for Transport Canada’s response is that including the helicopter movements would reduce the number of daily movements available for large turboprops.

Bob Kotyk