The appellant challenged a conviction for failing to report a blasting incident that propelled fly-rock into the air and damaged nearby property.
The Court held that the reporting duty under the Environmental Protection Act is triggered where a contaminant is discharged out of the normal course of events and there is or may be an adverse effect, without requiring proof of actual impairment to the natural environment.
It emphasized the statute’s broad remedial purpose and confirmed that each branch of the adverse-effect definition independently engages the duty to notify the regulator.
On the facts, the discharge caused significant property damage and potential serious harm, requiring immediate reporting.
The appeal was dismissed.
