Ontario (Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks) v. Metrolinx, 2026 ONCJ 453

CITATION: Ontario (Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks) v. Metrolinx, 2026 ONCJ 453

DATE: July 31, 2026

Court File/Information 241567

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

(Central East Region, Barrie)

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

[Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks]

Crown/Prosecutor

AND

METROLINX

Defendant

Heard before Justice of the Peace C. M. Shoniker

This Ruling provided on trial completion date July 28, 2026

At the Barrie Provincial Offences Court,

of the Ontario Court of Justice

Ms. Kathleen Clements, Lead Counsel, assisted by Counsel Ms. Shams,

… Appearing for Crown Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks

Mr. Alexander Steele, Defence Counsel

… Appearing as Counsel for Defendant Metrolinx

RULING AND REASONS FOR RULING AND SENTENCE

Written Ruling and Reasons of Justice of the Peace C. M. Shoniker, as follows:

PART I – INTRODUCTION TO THE PARTICIPANTS

AND PROCEDURAL AND TRIAL CONTEXT OF THIS RULING:

Introduction To the Participants -

1. These are the Court’s reasons for sentence respecting the Defendant, METROLINX (hereinafter referred to as Metrolinx), arising from a fuel spill occurring on August 11, 2022, at Metrolinx’s ALLANDALE FACILITY (hereinafter referred to as Allandale) located at 280 Lakeshore Drive in the City of Barrie. METROLINX is a Crown Agency that provides public transportation services in the province of Ontario.

Allandale Facility’s property and structures are owned and operated by Metrolinx. It serves as a train layover station, with day-to-day mechanical repair, servicing, and fueling yard for locomotives used in the provision of public transportation services.

2. Allandale Facility is a layover facility for trains and rail equipment. It is not a layover-type location for members of the public who make use of the station for daytime travel south from Barrie area usually to Toronto and interim destinations.

3. The MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, PARKS, AND RECREATION (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ministry’) alleged that METROLINX was one of the Defendants responsible for causing or permitting the discharge of diesel fuel released during the over-fueling of a locomotive tank which overspilled and ultimately discharged into Lake Simcoe in the area of Kempenfelt Bay, thereby impairing the lake water, contrary to regulation pursuant to the Ontario Water Resources Act.

4. Metrolinx was charged, together with several other Co-Defendants: ALSTOM TRANSPORT CANADA INC. (hereinafter referred to as Alstom); G. DAVIS AND R. DAVIS of DAVIS SERVICES (a limited partnership company and hereinafter referred to as DAVIS), and the FUEL PUMP TECHNICIAN – an individual who this Court will refer to as M.C. working at Allandale on August 11th, 2022.

5. Those Co-Defendants resolved their related charges stemming from the same incident and charging document/ Information on earlier court dates (and not before this Justice of the Peace).

6. Only the case for METROLINX proceeded as a contested trial. Over several earlier court days, this Court heard extensive testimony from provincial Ministry witnesses- Environmental investigators and compliance officers, City of Barrie witnesses, Metrolinx Executives, civilian witnesses, together with numerous documentary exhibits.

Procedural and Evidential History of these Proceedings and Context of Today’s Resolution -

7. Today’s court date had been previously scheduled for continuation of this trial, and one of the Defence witnesses was currently on the witness stand.

8. However, upon opening the court day today, Counsel for the Ministry and Counsel for Metrolinx advised that, by their continued discussions during the course of the trial, they reached a resolution position which they wished to present to this Court.

9. The Court was pleasantly surprised by their agreement, and wished to acknowledge the professionalism, openness and cooperation demonstrated by both Ministry Counsel, Ms. Clements, and Defence Counsel, Mr. Steele.

10. In response to Counsel first informing this Justice of the Peace of their wish and intention to discontinue the ongoing witness trial testimony due to their agreement, this Court affirmed its earlier receipt of trial evidence (by document and witness testimony) and factual findings based thereupon.

11. As this Court heard today of their further Agreed Statement of Facts from both Counsel prior to Metrolinx’s re-arraignment and submitted formally at the time was submitted by the Parties.

12. Effectively, this Court accepted the plea not merely upon the contents of today’s Agreed Statement of Facts but also based in part upon the evidence already heard and received during the contested portion of the trial and its findings thereupon based.

13. A plea of guilt was thereafter entered by Metrolinx to Count 2: the commission of the regulatory offence of discharging, causing or permitting the discharge of diesel fuel into waters at the location of Kempenfelt Bay of Lake Simcoe in the City of Barrie or, which said discharge may have impaired the quality of the water on the date of August 11th 2022, contrary to section 30(1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, ch.O.40 as amended, and thereby committing an offence under section 107(1) of these said Act.

14. The Agreed Statement of Facts filed today was marked as Sentencing-Exhibit One.

15. Resolution discussions between Counsel outside of Court can sometimes lead to resolution agreement even during an otherwise ongoing contested trial. Such ongoing discussions between Counsel for the Parties illustrates that a trial proceeding remains a dynamic process until final judgment has been rendered by the Court.

16. This Justice of the Peace appreciates the efforts of Counsel in reaching a principled resolution after careful consideration of the evidence that had already been presented.

17. During today’s Sentencing part of this Hearing, Crown and Defence Counsel jointly submitted that an appropriate disposition would be the imposition of a financial penalty in the amount of $185,000, with administrative costs and a victim fine surcharge to be added to the Court’s Order.

18. Before determining whether that jointly proposed penalty ought to be accepted, the Court independently considered the principles governing sentencing for regulatory offences as they applied to the present case with METROLINX, including but not limited to:

• seriousness of the offence,

• degree of responsibility borne by Metrolinx,

• environmental consequences arising from the spill,

• mitigating and aggravating circumstances,

• remedial/restorative measures undertaken following the incident,

• sentences previously imposed by another Court upon the other Defendants charged by the same Information and arising from the same occurrence,

• and governing legal principles respecting joint submissions on sentence.

19. The considerable evidentiary record developed over the earlier days of trial provided important contextual and relevant information respecting the nature and surrounding circumstances of the August 11, 2022 spill incident, responsibilities and relative positions of the various participants/co-defendants to Metrolinx, as well as information about post-spill environmental remediation, operational and mechanical changes implemented by Metrolinx, not referred to in the Agreed Statement of Facts filed today but which this Court needed to consider as factors relevant to its acceptance of the plea position and jointly proposed financial penalty.

20. With such consideration, this Court accepted Metrolinx’s plea to Count 2 and entered a conviction for that offence, and concluded that the jointly proposed penalty was fit, proportionate, and consistent with regulatory sentencing principles.

THE MORE PARTICULAR REASONS FOR THAT CONCLUSION ARE AS FOLLOWS …

PART II – APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING SENTENCING AND THE LAW - INCLUDING LEGAL PRECEDENT RELATED TO JOINT SUBMISSIONS

21. Sentencing for regulatory offences recognize that regulatory legislation is enacted primarily to protect the public interest through the promotion of lawful conduct, the prevention of harm, and the encouragement of compliance with statutory standards established for the protection of persons, property, and the environment.

22. The Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990 is regulatory legislation intended to safeguard Ontario’s water resources from contamination and pollution. Protection of lakes, rivers, streams, groundwater, and the broader environment is a matter of significant public importance. Those who own, operate, or control activities capable of affecting the environment are expected to conduct those activities in a careful, responsible, and proactive manner.

23. Sentencing under the Ontario Water Resources Act as with other regulatory Acts, is meant to advance the objective of environmental protection while promoting future compliance with legislation. The sentence imposed for a regulatory offence should encourage responsible environmental stewardship by regulated parties and reinforce public confidence that significant environmental incidents will attract meaningful legal consequences.

24. In determining a fit sentence, this Court considered, among other relevant circumstances, the following principles:

a. offender’s cooperation with investigating authorities;

b. nature and objective seriousness of the offence,

c. degree of responsibility borne by the offender,

d. extent of the actual and potential environmental harm,

e. foreseeability and preventability of the incident,

f. degree of control exercised by the offender over the activity giving rise to the offence,

g. whether the offence resulted from deficiencies in operational practices, supervision, training, equipment, engineering controls, or management systems,

h. whether responsibility was accepted by way of a guilty plea,

i. timing of the guilty plea and the resulting conservation of judicial and public resources,

j. remediation, restoration, and cleanup undertaken following the incident,

k. financial costs incurred by the offender in carrying out those remedial measures,

l. corrective actions implemented to reduce the likelihood of recurrence,

m. Defendant’s demonstrated commitment to future compliance with the legislation,

n. need for both specific and general deterrence,

o. need for denunciation of conduct resulting in environmental contamination,

p. principle of proportionality, requiring that the sentence reflect both the seriousness of the offence and the offender’s degree of responsibility,

q. legal principle of parity, recognizing that similar offenders committing similar offences in similar circumstances should generally receive similar sentences unless a principled basis exists for distinguishing their respective levels of responsibility, and,

r. any other aggravating and mitigating circumstances disclosed by the evidence.

25. Regulatory offences frequently arise not from intentional misconduct but from failures in systems, procedures, supervision, communication, engineering controls, or operational oversight. The absence of deliberate wrongdoing does not lessen the importance of ensuring accountability where the conduct has resulted in harm to the environment or has created an unacceptable risk of such harm.

26. This Court recognized that owners and operators of regulated activities, as here in the case of METROLINX, necessarily cannot avoid responsibility merely because certain operational functions have been delegated to contractors or subcontractors. Where an organization retains ownership, operational control, or responsibility over hazardous materials, equipment, facilities, or processes, those responsibilities continue notwithstanding that aspects of the work may be performed by others.

27. Environmental sentencing also recognizes that meaningful corrective action following an incident is an important mitigating consideration. Prompt remediation, cooperation with regulatory authorities, reimbursement of cleanup costs, engineering improvements, enhanced inspection procedures, improved employee training, clearer operational protocols, and measures directed toward preventing recurrence are all relevant factors demonstrating a Defendant’s commitment to future compliance.

28. This Court considered the sentences/penalties previously imposed by other judicial officers on similarly situated defendants as well as, in this case, the sentences/penalties previously imposed by other Justice(s) of the Peace for Metrolinx’s Co-Defendants.

While parity in law does not require identical penalties, it does require that differences between sentences reflect genuine differences in level, nature and scope of responsibility, participation, culpability, and mitigating circumstances.

29. Finally, this Court considered the fact that the sentence or penalty proposed today was jointly recommended by the Ministry and Metrolinx.

30. Joint submissions occupy an important place in the administration of justice. They promote fairness, efficiency, certainty, and the resolution of litigation while conserving significant judicial and public resources. Crown Counsel and Defense Counsel are ordinarily in the best position to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases, the evidentiary record, the interests of the public, and the appropriate disposition.

31. A sentencing court should therefore not reject a joint submission simply because it might have imposed a somewhat different sentence had it been acting alone. Judicial intervention is warranted only where the proposed disposition would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest. Absent those circumstances, significant deference should be afforded to a jointly proposed sentence.

32. This Court considered both the seriousness of the present regulatory offence and whether the jointly proposed financial penalty of $185,000 represented a fit, fair, proportionate, and appropriate disposition against these legal principles.

PART III – NATURE OF THE OFFENCE, CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DISCHARGE, AND METROLINX’S DEGREE OF RESPONSIBILITY

33. As stated above, the offence occurred on August 11, 2022, at Metrolinx’s Allandale layover facility located at 280 Lakeshore Drive, in Barrie, Ontario. The facility is owned and operated by Metrolinx, and serves as a train storage, servicing and fueling yard for locomotives. It is a layover facility for trains rather than layover station for members of the public

A. Nature and Circumstances Giving Rise to the Diesel Spill

34. On August 11th, 20222, the individual technician M.C. handling the diesel fuel hose and its nozzle was an employee of Davis Services and worked at the Allandale Facility.

35. MC’s work tasks included filling the large diesel fuel tanks of the locomotive trains parked in a certain area of the rail yard for fuelling. Large drip or containment trays were situated below the locomotive trains and its tanks.

36. M.C. testified that he believed that, on August 11th, 2022, he engaged the fuel shut-off valve mechanism part of the nozzle, which mechanism is used to auto shut off the flow of fuel from the hose into the tank when the tank was full.

37. M.C. testified that after engaging the mechanism on the nozzle, he then stepped away from the locomotive tank and fueling nozzle for a number of minutes distracted by another work activity inside the locomotive car.

38. During the time he was away from the hose and tank, it is believed that the fuel shut-off valve mechanism possibly disengaged or unlocked, causing the continued flow of diesel to flow into the locomotive fuel tank beyond its holding capacity, while not then monitored by M.C.

39. Diesel over-flowed first onto the side of the locomotive fuel tank, then into the drip trays beneath the locomotive, then through Allandale’s on-site oil-and-grit separator systems and containment systems, but due to the substantial quantity involved, the diesel overwhelmed their on-site systems.

40. The technician M.C. testified that, on returning to the fuelling post and nozzle, he did not appreciate the magnitude of the spill at the time and had believed his efforts to clean diesel from the side of the locomotive tank together with catchment by the drip trays below the locomotive had sufficiently addressed the situation.

41. Consequently, M.C. admitted that he did not immediately report the incident to his bosses, the Davis brothers, nor make a report to the Ministry or anyone else.

42. As it turned out, however, Metrolinx’s on-site systems were overwhelmed by the size of the overfill and spill, causing the spilled diesel to have entered the drip tray below the train, then overwhelming the on-site oil-grit separators for spill containment, and thereafter entering the Barrie’s storm sewer system and ultimately discharging out of a storm sewer outfall into Kempenfelt Bay of Lake Simcoe.

43. The spill first came to the attention of the City Official when a member of a local rowing club, while entering on the waters of Lake Simcoe at Kempenfelt Bay on August 12th with her daughter, observed an oily substance on the surface of the water attaching to their water vessel and their boat paddles and detected the diesel odour.

44. The witness notified the City of Barrie official. The City of Barrie Environmental Officer alerted Metrolinx on August 13th and in response Metrolinx Official went to the Allandale Facility to try to determine whether their facility might be the source and cause of the overspill.

45. After its investigation that day including their observation of an over containment of fuel left in an oil grit separator, ML advised Environmental Officers with the City of Barrie as the Ministry Office that the sheen observed in the Bay was likely the result of refueling activities at the Allandale Facility.

46. Metrolinx reached out to Davis Services who then spoke to their employee MC who described his fuelling activities as he had described by MC to this Court.

B. Metrolinx’s Ownership, Control and Responsibility

47. In assessing the degree of responsibility borne by Metrolinx, the Court has considered not simply who physically operated the fuel nozzle on the date of the spill, but who ultimately owned, controlled and managed the fueling operation.

48. The evidence established that:

• Metrolinx owned the Allandale layover property.

• Metrolinx owned the diesel fuel stored on site.

• Metrolinx controlled the quantity of fuel available for dispensing.

• Metrolinx owned or controlled the fueling equipment and associated mechanical components.

• Metrolinx maintained a locked or secured fueling room contained within one of the buildings on the Allandale site, access to which was limited primarily to Metrolinx management personnel and not accessible to the fuel handlers or technicians or subcontractors.

• And from this Court’s reading of the exhibit materials and testimony earlier given, Metrolinx retained possession and control of its fuel reconciliation records and dispensing data, which was information not readily available to outside organizations or Ministry investigators without Metrolinx’s cooperation.

49. While portions of the fueling operation had been delegated contractually, ownership and operational responsibility remained with Metrolinx.

50. Metrolinx retained Alstom as its immediate sub-contractor looking after the maintenance of its fleet and day to day operation, servicing and cleaning of trains at the Allandale Facility and elsewhere.

51. Alstom subcontracted fueling operations at the Allandale facility to Davis brothers, a registered business by name Davis Services, incorporated as a limited business partnership.

52. Davis Services employed the technician M.C., who physically handled the fueling of the locomotive tank on August 11, 2022, at the time of this tank overfill and diesel-spill incident.

53. Although various duties had been delegated through successive contractual arrangements, this Court finds that Metrolinx did not delegate ownership or ultimate responsibility respecting the diesel fuel, the fueling equipment, the fueling facility or the safe management of the fueling process at the Allandale layover station.

54. The Court is satisfied that responsibility for ensuring the safe delivery of diesel fuel into its locomotive fleet ultimately remained with Metrolinx.

D. The Fueling Equipment and Safety Lock Mechanism

55. A significant aspect of the spill-event was the failure of the auto-lock trigger on the fueling nozzle used by MC to work properly and as expected by him, likely the cause of the overfill and spill.

56. Members of the public may be familiar with similar locking devices found commonly on gasoline nozzles at retail gas service stations open to the public and used to fill gas tanks of their vehicles.

57. At an ordinary gasoline station, a Service Station Gas Attendant may engage an auto-locking mechanism located near the handle of the nozzle at the commencement of fueling, expecting fuel delivery from the pump to the car to automatically stop once the vehicle’s gas tank is filled. When the tank reaches it fuel capacity, air pressure from within the vehicle’s fuel tank should cause the auto-lock mechanism to disengage and stop the unheeded flow of fuel from the pump stand.

58. The evidence before this Court suggests however, that such auto or safety locking devices are not fail-safe - notwithstanding their common description as “safety locks” or alternately ‘auto lock’ mechanisms.

59. Witnesses possessing engineering expertise testified and told this Court that it is neither unusual nor exceptional for such fuel shut-off valve mechanisms to disengage prematurely, sometimes because of pressure changes occurring for other reasons somewhere within the fueling system.

60. During the course of the trial testimony for a witness with an engineering background indicated other possible reasons for the fuel shut-off valve to prematurely disengage, including:

• the location of the fuel inlet on the locomotive tank,

• the air pressure contained within the considerable size and air space within a locomotive fuel tank and its levelling on the train on the tracks,

• pressure variations occurring within the fueling hose,

• mechanical failure or mechanical fault with the fueling equipment,

and/or

• other possible issue with the fueling system and onsite spill-containment processes and mechanisms

61. Metrolinx’s own Final Report (Exhibit 29) indicated that, by its preliminary investigation, a misalignment between the flapper hinge and vent hose associated with the automatic shut-off mechanism was initial suspected as a possible cause for the locking mechanism to fail to perform as intended.

However, the Report stated that subsequent investigation revealed that those same components were in fact correctly positioned within the mechanism used by MC at Allandale on August 11, 2022.

62. Nonetheless, Metrolinx acknowledged that the fuel shut-off valve on locomotive 625 did not stop fuel flow when the locomotive reached capacity, per Exhibit 29.

E. Operational Practices Existing on August 11, 2022

63. The evidence further established that the fueling system in place on August 11, 2022, did not permit the operator to pre-set the quantity of fuel to be dispensed before fueling commenced.

64. The Technician filling up the locomotive tank with diesel at the Metrolinx Allandale layover site had only two practical options:

• engage the locking mechanism and continue monitoring the fueling process,

OR

• manually hold the nozzle throughout fueling.

65 ~~. ~~Regardless of which option was chosen, Metrolinx has maintained throughout this trial that the Technician MC and any other technician was expected to remain beside the locomotive and fuel hose and nozzle during the fueling process.

66. Testimonial evidence indicated that fueling a locomotive tank capable of holding somewhere between 1400 to 1600 litres of diesel could take as long as 20 minutes or more, particularly where the tank was substantially depleted before fueling began.

67. That process for a technician standing at the fuel pump and watching the gradual rise of fuel visible through the locomotive fuel level window might find such process tedious and slow. In the view of this Justice of the Peace, it is therefore understandable and likely that a technician might be tempted to step away after believing the auto-lock mechanism had safely secured the nozzle, even if not in accordance with some work protocols.

68. Metrolinx maintained that the locking mechanism was never intended to replace continuous operator supervision. And that it was their expectation that the fueling process would be continuously monitored by any on-site technician, notwithstanding the optional use of the auto-locking device.

F. Further Information by Metrolinx’s Internal Investigation

69. Exhibit 29 is one of numerous trial exhibits, titled “Incident Investigation Final Report, Allandale Layover Fuel Spill Incident, August 11, 2022”.

70. This Report referred to Metrolinx’s internal fuel reconciliation, by which Metrolinx determined that locomotive 625 received approximately 10,538 litres of diesel fuel. And, the Locomotive had an approximate fuel capacity of 7,000 litres, leading to Metrolinx calculation an overfill of approximately 3,538 litres.

71. This Report also indicates that the diesel fuel was dispensed through the fuel hose and nozzle and into the receiving locomotive tank at approximately 380 litres per minute. Using both fuel volume and flow rate calculations, Metrolinx estimated that the fueling operation had been left unattended for approximately six minutes.

72. The Court accepts those calculations from Metrolinx, whilst recognizing such information was derived from Metrolinx’s own internal investigation.

73. Such information was relevant in understanding both the magnitude of the spill and the operational circumstances giving rise to this offence.

PART IV – ENVIRONMENTAL HARM, REMEDIATION, CORRECTIVE MEASURES, PARITY OF SENTENCE, AND DISPOSITION

A. Environmental Harm and Cleanup

74. In assessing the nature and seriousness of this diesel spill incident of August 11, 2022, the Court has considered both the actual environmental harm caused and the prompt remedial steps undertaken following discovery of the spill.

75. As stated above, the volume of diesel discharged by the overfill of the tank on August 11, 2022, exceeded the containment capacity of the engineered operational systems located at the Allandale facility. Once the oil and grit separators became overwhelmed, diesel ultimately entered Lake Simcoe’s Kempenfelt Bay through the storm sewer outfall.

76 ~~. ~~Thereafter Metrolinx immediately began engaging with representatives of the City of Barrie, Ministry officials, its contractor Alstom, and Davis brothers. Metrolinx cooperated and supported cleanup efforts of the diesel coordinated by the City of Barrie and Ministry Environment Officer.

77. The cleanup operation by a 3rd Party Company continued for approximately two days utilizing specialized recovery equipment, vacuum and pump-out hoses and tanks, and various absorbent materials and floating containment barriers used near the storm warm outfall area of Kempenfelt Bay.

78. Defence Counsel advised, consistent with the evidence heard during trial, that Metrolinx reimbursed the City of Barrie for costs paid to the 3rd party company for their cleanup. The evidence placed those costs at approximately $37,000 together with ancillary expenses, for a total approaching $40,000. The Court accepts that Metrolinx paid those cleanup costs.

79. The Court further accepts the evidence that Metrolinx believes and submits that most, if not all, of the diesel released during the spill incident was ultimately recovered by combination of their own Allandale onsite engineered containment systems with the cleanup of diesel undertaken at Kempenfelt Bay.

80. It was noteworthy to this Court that there was no evidence that suggested ongoing environmental damage, continuing contamination, or continuing harm to persons following completion of the remediation on the day or two after the spill.

81. That circumstance does not diminish the seriousness of the offence. Rather, in this Court’s view, reflects in part the effectiveness of the subsequent cleanup efforts undertaken by the outside clean up company as arranged by the City of Barrie and ultimately paid for by Metrolinx.

B. Remediation and Corrective Measures

82. One of the most significant mitigating considerations in this case is the extensive review undertaken by Metrolinx following this incident. Rather than treating the spill as an isolated occurrence, Metrolinx undertook a detailed internal investigation and engineering review as reflected in Exhibit 29.

83. The Court is satisfied that Metrolinx carefully examined both the operational and engineering causes contributing to the spill and thereafter implemented significant changes intended to reduce the likelihood of a similar occurrence in the future.

84. Those measures post spill-incident included:

• reducing the maximum quantity of diesel capable of being dispensed from Metrolinx onsite fuel stations from approximately 6,375 litres [which was the dispensable maximum amount in place on August 11, 2022], to approximately 4,000 litres post August 11, 2022,

and standardizing the reduced dispensing limit across all Metrolinx fueling facilities,

• reviewing engineering controls throughout it fueling operations,

• removing the autolocking/ fuel shut-off valve mechanism from fueling nozzles at layover facilities,

• requiring operators to manually hold the nozzle continually throughout the entire fueling process and stand beside the tank and nozzle,

• post the Aug 11, 2022-spill incident, soon thereafter removing the auto-shutoff/locking mechanism that had previously been available to technicians for their sue on site locations,

• issuing revised written and electronic operating instructions to fueling personnel,

• directing d better communicating that technicians remain with the fuel nozzle at all times during fueling,

• directing and better communicating that fuel handlers/technicians are to remain with third-party fueling providers while fueling was taking place, even when the outside company employee was physically operating the equipment,

• reviewing inspection practices respecting fueling equipment,

• increasing operational audits of training and coaching across all sites including Allandale

• reviewing responsibility for maintenance and inspection of fueling nozzles and associated equipment, again for Allandale sites and all others,

• improving Metrolinx own communication respecting fueling practices and spill response procedures -

• and further, post August 11th, 2022, Metrolinx developed their own more clearly communicated internal spill reporting and control protocols -- rather than relying at least in part upon procedures, protocols and communications maintained by their subcontractor companies.

85. The earlier witness testimony suggested that Metrolinx’s fuel dispensing system [pre or post August 2022] does not enable technicians like MC to pre-set a quantity of fuel to be dispensed before fueling commenced.

86. And, there according to the witness testimony, but for visual cues from the tank window, a technician filling a locomotive’s tank has no way of knowing exactly how much is already in the tank pre-filling, nor an exact amount required to reach its tank capacity.

87. Nevertheless, post August 11th, 2022, operational changes adopted by Metrolinx (as above mentioned) substantially reduced reliance upon operator/technician judgment alone and eliminated use of the auto-locking mechanism at all sites including Allandale.

88. The Court also accepts that Metrolinx has since become considerably more attentive to inspection frequency, operational oversight, equipment maintenance and contractor supervision at all site locations including Allendale post August 11, 2022.

89. In the Court’s view, these corrective measures represent meaningful efforts directed not merely toward responding to the present incident but toward preventing recurrence.

C. Acceptance of Responsibility

90. After several earlier trial dates of witness testimony and documentary evidence, Counsel for the Ministry Ms. Clements and Defense Counsel for Metrolinx Mr Steele announced today that continued discussions between them has ultimately resulted in their resolution position and jointly proposed penalty placed before this Court.

91. This Justice of the Peace was pleasantly surprised by such development and appreciates the professionalism demonstrated by both Counsel.

92. Trials remain living and evolving proceedings. Resolution is often achieved only after careful and further consideration of evidence already presented and continued dialogue between Counsel.

93. Metrolinx today admitted responsibility for having caused or permitted the discharge of diesel fluid – a material potentially harmful to the environment, into Kempenfelt Bay of Lake Simcoe in Barrie on August 11th, 2022.

94. The Court accepts that plea demonstrated Metrolinx acceptance of legal responsibility for the offence and serving as a measure of both specific and public deterrence.

95. Although considerable judicial and court resources had already been expended, the guilty plea nevertheless avoided completion of what remained a lengthy trial and conserved further court resources.

96. The Court recognizes that this conviction constitutes Metrolinx’s first regulatory conviction of this type since they began their operation as Metrolinx in or about 2006.

D. Parity of Sentence relative to earlier Co-Defendants -

97. The Court has also considered the sentences previously imposed upon the remaining defendants arising from this same incident.

98. On May 30, 2025, G Davis on behalf of DAVIS SERVICES entered a guilty plea to one count, waiving their right to trial, and received a financial penalty of $10,000, with charges against R. Davis withdrawn.

99. On July 30, 2025, the individual technician working for the Davis brothers, MC, entered a guilty plea to one count, waiving his right to trial, and received a fine of $5,500. The Court notes that MC’s loss of employment after the spill-incident may well have been considered on his sentencing and the amount of his financial penalty.

100. On September 18, 2025, ALSTOM TRANSPORT CANADA INC. resolved its charges by way of a guilty plea to one count, waiving their right to trial, and received a financial penalty of $90,000.

101. The Court has considered those earlier dispositions together with the principle of parity, while recognizing that parity in law does not require identical penalties. METROLINX occupied a materially different position from the other Co-Defendants.

102. METROLINX owned the property, owned the diesel fuel, controlled the fueling equipment, retained control over the quantity of fuel available for dispensing, maintained exclusive control over fuel reconciliation information, and ultimately bore responsibility for the operational systems governing the fueling process.

103. The Court therefore finds that a substantially greater financial penalty than that imposed on each of the former Co-Defendants is justified.

E. Joint Submission and Proposed Penalty

104. Counsel has jointly recommended that Metrolinx be fined $185,000 with the applicable administrative costs and victim fine surcharge to be added for the total payable by Metrolinx.

105. The Court has carefully considered this joint submission, having recognized that considerable weight should be afforded to a jointly proposed sentence negotiated by experienced Counsel familiar with both the evidentiary record and the applicable law.

106. As indicated by Ministry Crown Ms. Clements, under this legislation, for a first offence/conviction, the minimum and maximum financial penalty prescribed by statute which on a first offense is a minimum of $25,000 and a maximum of 6 million dollars per day of continued commission of the offence.

107. Had the trial proceeded and if this Court ultimately found Metrolinx guilty of this regulatory offence, this Justice of the Peace potentially could have considered an amount which exceeded the amount jointly proposed by both Counsel today.

108. Having regard to:

• the level of seriousness of the environmental discharge,

• Metrolinx’s degree of responsibility and operational control,

• resolution today by Metrolinx with the adjunct conservation of further judicial and court resources,

• the actual environmental impact, particularly considering cleanup measures/ remediation the following day,

• absence of evidence of continued harm or risk of harm to the waters of Lake Simcoe and environment of Kempenfelt Bay

• reimbursement by Metrolinx to the City of Barrie for cost of cleanup,

~~- ~~circumstances surrounding this spill incident suggesting such event arose from a less frequent constellation of circumstances (which in this case involved one technician, his distracted use of

~~- ~~the fueling hose and nozzle and its fuel shutoff valve, and this likely problematic part of the mechanical process,

• proactive engineering and operational changes implemented by Metrolinx post-incident, including the removal and discontinued use of the fuel shut off valves,

• adaptive and corrective measures implemented by Metrolinx to lessen risk of recurrence, including increased communications by them as source of messaging, for greater clarity and uniformity of safety and spill response protocols across all site locations and personnel,

• recognition of parity when considering penalty relative to the roles and responsibilities of those also charged and relative to the spill-incident, and,

• and generally, recognition of accountability, prevention, specific deterrence and general deterrence,

… This Court is satisfied that the jointly proposed penalty appropriately reflects the gravity of this regulatory offence while having recognized significant mitigating factors as listed in the above paragraph and applied to this offence and the actions of this Defendant Metrolinx.

109. From the evidence heard throughout this proceeding, the Court considers this incident to have been both unfortunate but significant, in that it appears to have served as an important catalyst for meaningful changes to Metrolinx’s fueling operations, engineering controls, operational oversight, contractor supervision and spill prevention procedures.

110. The public interest is served not only by imposing a meaningful financial penalty, but also by recognizing those substantial corrective measures that have already been implemented by Metrolinx to reduce the likelihood of a similar incident occurring in the future.

111. In the Court’s view, the penalty as jointly recommended by Ministry Crown Counsel and Defense Counsel is fair, proportionate, consistent with the purposes of sentencing under the Ontario Water Resources Act, respectful of the principle of parity, reflective of the seriousness of the offence, and appropriately recognizes both Metrolinx’s acceptance of responsibility and the extensive remediation and operational improvements undertaken following the events of August 11, 2022.

F. Final Disposition for Metrolinx

112. For all these reasons, the Court accepts the jointly proposed disposition.

113. The guilty plea to Count 2 by Metrolinx’ was today July 28th, 2026, accepted and conviction registered for this offence, with the related other Count on the Information noted withdrawn by the Ministry. A fine in the amount of $185,000, with the applicable administrative costs and victim fine surcharge to be added for the total fine payable by Metrolinx. Such amount to be paid with 120 days.

Decision on July 28, 2026,

This Final Decision/Written Ruling and Reasons

delivered through the Clerk of the Court electronically on July 31, 2026.

C. M. Shoniker, Central East Region, Ontario

Justice of the Peace in and for the Province of Ontario