A corporate appellant appealed convictions and sentence under the Environmental Protection Act for depositing waste at an unapproved site and transporting waste without approval.
The court held that the circumstantial evidence reasonably supported the finding that the appellant hauled waste from a known waste-laden source site to the destination property, and that competing-source theories were speculative.
The due diligence defence failed because the appellant took no independent steps to verify that the material was clean fill and relied solely on a customer's verbal assurance in a heavily regulated environmental context.
The court also held that the two offences were legally distinct for Kienapple purposes, found the reasons sufficient, and upheld the total fine of $50,000 as fit.
