The appellant appealed summary conviction findings under the Fisheries Act arising from a highway washout that deposited debris into fish-bearing waters and damaged fish habitat.
The appellant argued the trial judge erred in rejecting a due diligence defence and in concluding that a highway and culvert constituted a “work or undertaking” under the Act, and further argued that the Kienapple principle should bar convictions on both counts.
The court held that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in rejecting the due diligence defence and properly applied the relevant factors.
It further held that maintaining road infrastructure constitutes “carrying on a work or undertaking” for the purposes of s. 35 of the Fisheries Act and that the two offences addressed distinct statutory purposes.
The appeal was dismissed.
