Frank Crossley

2 total

RW

The Crown need only prove the added substance is deleterious under the Fisheries Act.

The City of Kingston operated a municipal dump site from which toxic leachate migrated into the Cataraqui River.

The Crown and a private citizen laid charges under s. 36(3) of the Fisheries Act.

The trial judge convicted the City and its Director of Environmental Services, but the summary conviction appeal judge ordered a new trial, applying the test from R. v. Inco Ltd. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the convictions, holding that the Inco test applies to the Ontario Water Resources Act, not the Fisheries Act.

Under the Fisheries Act, the Crown need only prove that the substance added to the water is deleterious, not that the receiving water itself was rendered deleterious.

R. v. Kingston (Corp. of the City), 2004 CanLII 39042 (ON CA)

Ministry of the Environment's Hydrogeologist · movement of ground water through the subsurface · Retained by Applicant

MH

Mr. Hogle

1 case2001–2001

MD

Mr. DeMille

1 case2001–2001

RS

Robert Stephens

ONFPPBUnanimous0 cases2001–2001

ML

Marcel Leroux

ONFPPBUnanimous0 cases2001–2001

GO

G. Edward Oldfield

ONFPPB0 cases1997–2001

ONFPPBMar 30, 2001

Municipal by-law requiring 40% land ownership for manure management restricts normal farm practice.

The applicant poultry farm applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, alleging that a municipal by-law requiring intensive livestock operations to own at least 40% of the land used for their nutrient management plan restricted a normal farm practice.

The Board heard evidence from various experts and industry representatives regarding manure management practices.

The Board concluded that the use of contract land and nutrient management plans are normal farm practices.

The Board held that the 40% ownership requirement unduly restricted normal farm practice, and that long-term control of the land base, such as through multi-year leases or agreements, was the appropriate standard.