The documents below represent years of independent research and expert analysis examining the proposal to bring jets to Toronto's Island Airport. Together, they form a comprehensive evidence base showing the safety, environmental, health, and planning risks of jet expansion. We encourage you to read and share these reports with your MP, neighbours, and networks.
Officer of Health's assessment found jet expansion would worsen air quality, increase cancer risk and premature death, raise traffic injuries, and reduce waterfront access.
Campus-community research monitored air quality 650-900 meters from the runway (2020-2022). Findings show the airport is a major source of ultrafine particles, with higher pollution during southerly winds and takeoff/landing operations. Results inform planning decisions about land use and airport operations.
Introducing jets requires upgrading safety standards, expanding marine exclusion zones from 305 metres to 830-1,190 metres—effectively closing the Western Gap. Obstacle limitation surfaces would blanket the Port Lands, restricting building heights and cancelling some of 14,000 planned homes and billions in development investment.
The Island Airport is the only major Canadian airport and the only comparable marine-based airport worldwide lacking approach lighting systems. Transport Canada recommends this safety feature for jet operations. Installation would require structures extending 360-630 meters into the harbour, fundamentally changing marine access.
This community presentation outlines the history of proposals to expand the Island Airport since 1996, as well as the potential impacts of Premier Ford's Bill 5. Jet operations would increase passenger traffic up to 400 per cent, limit housing development in the Port Lands, harm wildlife habitat, and bring debilitating gridlock to the waterfront.
The 1983 agreement between the federal government, Toronto Port Authority, and City of Toronto explicitly prohibits commercial jets and runway extensions. It expires in 2033. Any jet expansion requires all three parties, including the federal agreement to renegotiate. The federal government can simply say no to amendments.
This report identifies 11 safety concerns including inadequate marine exclusion zones, dangerous jet blasts, severe bird strike risk, constrained airspace, and absence of approach lighting.
In 2015, a consultant for Air Canada found true infrastructure costs would reach $1 billion—not $92 million—including terminal expansion, new tunnel, and approach lighting. No comparable-sized airport has undertaken such investment.
This environmental study was conducted by the Toronto Port Authority (previously PortsToronto), rather than an independent body. Community groups criticized it for failing to adequately assess safety zones, marine impacts, approach lighting, and effects on the Port Lands redevelopment.
Follow us on:
Copyright © 2010-2026 Environmental Defence Canada. All Rights Reserved.
Charitable #11883 0835 RR0001
Tell Your MP to
Say NO to Jets