3 total
The Court of Appeal held that the discretion to relieve against minimum fines under the Provincial Offences Act must be exercised sparingly and imposed the $25,000 statutory minimum.
The Crown appealed a sentence imposed on a winery corporation that pleaded guilty to discharging material into a watercourse in violation of the Ontario Water Resources Act.
The trial judge imposed a fine of $600, invoking section 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act to relieve the defendant from the statutory minimum fine of $25,000.
The appeal judge increased the fine to $5,000, still below the minimum.
The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and imposed the minimum fine of $25,000, holding that section 59(2) must be applied with appropriate restraint to avoid undermining the deterrent purpose of minimum fines in public welfare legislation.
Tribunal reasonably interpreted s. 18 of the EPA to permit Director's orders for off-site contamination delineation.
The appellants appealed a decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal upholding a Director's order under s. 18 of the Environmental Protection Act.
The order required the appellants, as owners or former owners/occupiers of a contaminated source property, to delineate contamination that had migrated to off-site properties.
The appellants argued s. 18 was limited to future events and on-site remediation, contrasting it with the fault-based s. 17.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's broad interpretation of s. 18—that it permits off-site orders and applies to existing, ongoing, and future adverse effects—was reasonable and consistent with the modern principles of statutory interpretation.
The corporate defendant was fined $140,000 and ordered to retain an embedded auditor for environmental offences.
Quantex Technologies Inc. and Marco Dalla-Nora pleaded guilty to three counts under the Environmental Protection Act: two counts relating to improper waste manifesting and transfer of hazardous waste without proper notice, and one count relating to air emissions causing discomfort.
The Crown and defence reached a joint submission on penalty.
The court imposed total fines of $140,000 plus victim fine surcharges and a 15-month probation order with unique conditions including a prohibition on bulking hazardous wastes for six months and the installation of an embedded auditor.
All remaining charges were withdrawn.
The court commended both parties for the innovative use of an embedded auditor as a rehabilitative tool.
