Nick Adamson

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.

Quantex Technologies Inc. and Marco Dalla-Nora pleaded guilty to three counts under the Environmental Protection Act: two counts relating to improper waste manifesting and transfer of hazardous waste without proper notice, and one count relating to air emissions causing discomfort.

The Crown and defence reached a joint submission on penalty.

The court imposed total fines of $140,000 plus victim fine surcharges and a 15-month probation order with unique conditions including a prohibition on bulking hazardous wastes for six months and the installation of an embedded auditor.

All remaining charges were withdrawn.

The court commended both parties for the innovative use of an embedded auditor as a rehabilitative tool.

Appellants were convicted of two counts of hindering or obstructing a provincial offences officer contrary to section 42(1) of the Nutrient Management Act.

The appellants parked their truck directly in front of Ministry of the Environment inspectors' truck, blocking its exit, and refused multiple requests to move.

The appellants appealed their convictions arguing the actus reus was not proven and that they exercised due diligence.

The court dismissed both grounds of appeal, finding that the appellants' actions constituted obstruction and that they failed to establish a due diligence defence, as their belief that the officers were trespassing was based on a mistake of law and was not reasonably held in the circumstances.