Demetrius Antonios Kappos

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a commercial fishing corporation on four strict liability charges relating to inaccurate logbooks and Daily Catch Reports submitted by its vessel captain.

The trial judge had acquitted the corporation on the basis of due diligence, finding there was little more the owner could have done from shore.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by applying an incorrect standard of care and failing to consider what a proper system of compliance would entail.

The court found the corporation's blind trust in a captain with a known history of non-compliance did not amount to due diligence.

Convictions were entered and the matter remitted for sentencing.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal to issue a development permit that would allow the importation of 1.8 million cubic metres of fill to rehabilitate a quarry.

The appellant argued the proposal was a permitted use under the Niagara Escarpment Plan, such as a mineral extraction operation or forest management.

The Hearing Officers found that the existing rehabilitation plan was substantially complete and that the proposal amounted to a commercial fill operation, which is not a permitted use.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants were convicted of operating a quarry without a licence under the Aggregate Resources Act following a trial before a Justice of the Peace.

Their first appeal to the Ontario Court of Justice was dismissed.

They then attempted to appeal to the Superior Court of Justice, which ruled it lacked jurisdiction.

The applicants sought leave to appeal this jurisdictional ruling to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave, confirming that under the Provincial Offences Act, a second appeal from a Justice of the Peace's decision lies only to the Court of Appeal with leave, not to the Superior Court of Justice.

The Crown prosecuted two defendants for possession of live invasive fish contrary to the Fisheries Act and Ontario Fishery Regulations.

On January 25, 2012, and February 28, 2012, tractor-trailers carrying fish shipments from Northeast Arkansas Fish Farms were referred for secondary inspection at the Ambassador Bridge.

Ministry of Natural Resources officers determined that the shipments contained live grass carp and bighead carp, respectively, which are classified as invasive species.

The defendants had no licence to possess live invasive fish.

The driver, Yong-Sheng Zhang, was present during inspections where live fish were observed in water samples.

The corporate defendant, Alltheway Trucking Inc., was responsible for transporting the shipments.

The court found both defendants guilty on both counts, rejecting defences of due diligence and honest mistaken belief.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission applied for judicial review of a Joint Board decision granting conditional approval to Walker Aggregates Inc. to develop a quarry in the Niagara Escarpment Plan area.

The applicant argued the Board failed to properly apply the Niagara Escarpment Plan, improperly delegated approval of an Adaptive Management Plan to the Minister of Natural Resources, and erred in assessing noise impacts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as it correctly applied the relevant planning documents, did not improperly delegate its authority, and reasonably assessed environmental and noise impacts.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for operating a quarry without a licence contrary to the Aggregate Resources Act.

They raised several grounds of appeal, including that the corporate appellant was unrepresented, the search warrant should have been quashed, the trial judge improperly classified the offence as absolute liability, there was an apprehension of bias, and the trial judge improperly altered the transcript.

The appeal court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the individual appellant properly represented the corporation, the search warrant review was handled correctly, and although the trial judge erred in classifying the offence as absolute liability, no miscarriage of justice occurred because no due diligence defence was advanced.

The court found no bias and held that the transcript alterations did not affect the outcome.

The sentence appeal was partially allowed on consent of the Crown to correct a minor miscalculation in the days of operation, reducing the total fines from $402,000 to $383,000, but the court otherwise found the substantial fines fit given the deliberate and prolonged nature of the offences.