The Crown appealed an acquittal of the respondent on a charge of discharging a contaminant under the Environmental Protection Act following a gasoline spill from a pipe failure.
The trial judge convicted the respondent, holding that the due diligence defence was unavailable because the precise cause of the pipe failure was unknown.
The appeal judge overturned the conviction, finding the defence was made out unless it was patently obvious that reasonable care was not met.
The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that while a defendant need not prove the precise cause of an event to raise a due diligence defence, the appeal judge erred in law by shifting the onus of disproving due diligence to the Crown.
