Lyle F. Curran

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered on a statutory appeal after a chemical manufacturer had originally been convicted of unlawfully discharging chlorine gas into the natural environment, causing serious injury to a worker.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 14(1) of the Environmental Protection Act applied to a discharge causing an adverse effect on a person even where the impact was confined to a worker at the workplace, and rejected a distinction between direct and consequential effects.

The court further held that the Occupational Health and Safety Act did not oust the application of the Environmental Protection Act, as the two statutes permissibly overlapped and did not conflict.

The original conviction and sentence on the unlawful discharge count were restored.

The appellant developer purchased lots in a subdivision but refused to assume the original subdivider's obligations to install municipal services.

After protracted negotiations failed, the respondent municipality passed a by-law without notice to the appellant, deeming the lots not to be a registered plan of subdivision.

The appellant sought judicial review to quash the by-law.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the municipality's action was quasi-judicial and attracted the duty of fairness (audi alteram partem), the discretionary remedy of certiorari was denied because of the appellant's conduct in attempting to avoid its obligations and evade municipal regulation through checkerboarding.