Oversight Failure: How the Ontario Ombudsman Accepted MECP’s Misleading Story on Pearson
TL;DR – What this page shows
- The Ontario Ombudsman closed a complaint about MECP’s Pearson jurisdiction without ever contacting MECP to verify its claims.
- Key government records directly contradict MECP’s story – including a ServiceOntario email confirming that aircraft noise compliance in Ontario is governed by Transport Canada and MECP.
- The Ombudsman misframed the complaint as “aircraft noise is federal,” ignoring ground-based environmental sources and Ontario’s own environmental laws.
- Residents are left with no effective oversight of a ministry that refuses to use its environmental powers around Pearson.
The Office of the Ontario Ombudsman exists to provide independent, evidence-based review of provincial ministries and public bodies. In practice, when residents raised concerns about the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) stepping away from Pearson’s environmental harms, the Ombudsman’s Office accepted MECP’s story at face value and closed the file.
This page documents how the Ombudsman relied on incomplete and misleading information, ignored key government records, and mischaracterized the complaint — leaving communities under the Toronto Pearson flight paths with no meaningful oversight.
1. Ombudsman Relied on MECP’s Assertions Without Verifying Them
In a follow-up letter dated January 12, 2026, the Pearson Accountability Alliance formally requested reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s decision to close the file. That letter confirms that during a November 21 call, Ombudsman staff acknowledged that they had not contacted MECP regarding the jurisdictional questions raised in the complaint.
Instead of conducting an independent, evidence-based review, the Ombudsman’s Office relied on MECP’s unilateral claim that activities at Pearson “fall under federal jurisdiction” and treated this as sufficient to terminate the complaint.
In other words, the ministry under scrutiny was allowed to define its own responsibility — with no verification, no cross-checking against other government records, and no analysis of applicable environmental statutes.
2. MECP’s “No Role” Claim Is Contradicted by the Government of Ontario’s Own Record
On October 21, 2025, ServiceOntario, writing on behalf of the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery, issued a clear written statement:
“Aircraft noise compliance in Ontario is governed by Transport Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), which sets noise limits for stationary and transportation sources.”
This is an official Government of Ontario communication. It confirms that:
- MECP has responsibilities in aircraft noise compliance.
- MECP sets enforceable limits for stationary and transportation noise sources.
- MECP plays a role that it is now denying.
The Ombudsman’s decision does not address this contradiction at all. Instead, it accepts MECP’s claim that it has “no jurisdiction” over Pearson’s impacts, even though another ministry says the opposite.
3. The Complaint Was Misframed as “Aircraft Noise Is Federal”
The original complaint and follow-up letters repeatedly focused on ground-based environmental sources at Pearson and Ontario’s own environmental laws — not aircraft in flight. These ground-based sources include:
- Fuel systems, boilers, and stationary combustion sources
- Runway de-icing chemicals and glycol runoff
- Rubber-removal solvents and cleaners
- Soil and groundwater contamination
- Stationary and transportation-related noise from airport infrastructure and roads
These are classic sources regulated under Ontario statutes like the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA), and O. Reg. 419/05 (Air Pollution – Local Air Quality), as well as noise guidelines such as NPC-300 and land-use guidance like LU-131.
The Ombudsman’s written decision, however, reduces the entire matter to a generic statement that MECP “does not regulate noise from aircraft or aerial routes” and that these are federal issues — a point that was never in dispute and does not answer the question raised.
By mischaracterizing the complaint as being about “aircraft noise in flight,” the Ombudsman avoided examining whether MECP is properly using its provincial environmental powers over ground-based activities at Pearson.
4. Federal and Provincial Documents Both Confirm MECP’s Powers at Pearson
The reconsideration request to the Ombudsman included several key legal and policy documents that were never meaningfully addressed:
4.1 Transport Canada Advisory Circular AC 300-009
Transport Canada’s Advisory Circular AC 300-009 explains that:
- Provincial, territorial and municipal laws of general application may validly apply at aerodromes.
- Aerodromes are not automatically immune from provincial environmental or noise laws.
- Where jurisdiction overlaps, provincial non-aeronautics legislation can be enforced.
This directly contradicts MECP’s blanket claim that Pearson’s impacts are “federal” and outside Ontario environmental law. The Ombudsman’s decision does not engage with AC 300-009 at all.
4.2 Pearson Ground Lease Obligations
The Pearson Ground Lease — a federal contract that governs the GTAA — requires compliance with:
- All applicable provincial environmental laws
- Municipal codes and by-laws
- Noise and nuisance protections
- “As if the property were not federal public property.”
MECP has stated that it is “not a party” to the Ground Lease and “will not interpret it.” The Ombudsman’s Office likewise declined to consider the lease, even though Transport Canada and the Auditor General routinely rely on lease compliance as part of airport oversight.
A provincial ministry does not become exempt from its own statutes simply because a federal lease exists; the Ground Lease explicitly incorporates provincial law. Ignoring that document leaves a hole where oversight should be.
5. What This Oversight Failure Means for Residents
The combined effect of MECP’s denial of jurisdiction and the Ombudsman’s acceptance of that denial is that:
- No provincial authority is actively using Ontario’s environmental and noise laws around Pearson.
- Federal bodies point to provincial laws and local planning tools for health protection — but the province refuses to use them.
- Residents are bounced between governments, with each pointing to the other when asked who is responsible.
This is not just a legal technicality. It leaves hundreds of thousands of people exposed to noise, pollution and chemical runoff from Pearson with no effective protection under Ontario law.
6. Take Action
If you are affected by Pearson’s impacts, you can:
- Share this page and the evidence below with your MPP, MP, and local Council.
- Ask them whether they believe Ontario environmental laws apply to ground-based sources at Pearson.
- Ask what steps they will take to restore independent oversight of MECP’s decisions.
Use the tool below to generate a letter you can send to your MPP, MP, councillor, or oversight body, asking them to address the oversight gaps described on this page. Fill in your details and the person or office you are writing to. Then copy the letter and paste it into an email, Word document, or submission form.
Fill in your details and the person or office you are writing to. Then copy the letter and paste it into an email, Word document, or submission form.
Turn this oversight failure into a formal challenge
Generate a formal letter you can adapt for MPs, councillors, MPPs, ombuds, unions, or media.
Documents (PDFs)
-
Formal Request for Reconsideration – Ontario Ombudsman (Jan 12, 2026, Redacted)
Letter from Pearson Accountability Alliance outlining procedural errors, material omissions, and mischaracterization of MECP’s responsibilities. -
MECP Complaint – Chemical Residue, Ground-Based Sources, and Outdated NEF Data (Redacted)
Evidence showing runway “CHEMICAL RESIDUE PRESENT” in official ATIS reports and detailing ground-based environmental sources at Pearson. -
ServiceOntario / INFOline – Confirmation of MECP Role in Aircraft Noise Compliance (Redacted)
Government of Ontario email confirming that aircraft noise compliance in Ontario is governed by Transport Canada and MECP. -
Phone Call Minutes – Discussion with Ontario Ombudsman Office (Redacted)
Internal minutes documenting the call between the complainant and Ombudsman staff about MECP’s Pearson jurisdiction.
Pearson Accountability Alliance
Independent Environmental & Public Health Research for Toronto Pearson Communities.