Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: September 18, 2025

Court File No.: Goderich 23-0224, 23-0255

Parties

Between:

County of Huron

— AND —

Joseph Terpstra and 1866025 Ontario Inc.

Judicial Officer and Counsel

Before: Justice of the Peace Anna M. Hampson

Heard on: October 10 and 11, 2024 and September 4 and 5, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released: September 18, 2025

Counsel:

• Darrell N. Hawerliak — counsel for the prosecution
• Adam Hunsberger — counsel for the defendants

ENDORSEMENT

Introduction

[1] Joseph Terpstra and 1866025 Ontario Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) are charged with violating 2 different sections of the Huron County Conservation By-Law (By-Law 38-2013) which prohibits and regulates the destruction of trees in woodlands and woodlots within the county. Joseph Terpstra is charged as the sole director of 1866025 Ontario Inc. The charges relate to the alleged destruction of a woodland located on land owned by 1866025 Ontario Inc. between March 1-July 31, 2023. The charges are for destroying trees in a woodland contrary to s. 2 and failing to comply with a stop work order contrary to s.7(6). Counts 2 and 4 of the Informations were dismissed on consent. It was also conceded by Mr. Hunsberger that identity of the defendants was not in dispute, and that the owner of the land was 1866025 Ontario Inc., and that Joseph Terpstra is the sole director and operating mind of the corporation.

[2] These are strict liability offences. If the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt all the essential elements of the offences, the onus shifts to the defendants to prove a due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities. The prosecution called 3 witnesses, each of whom was thoroughly cross examined. As is their right, the defendants did not call any evidence. The prosecution submits that all the essential elements of the 2 offences for each of the defendants has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant submits that the charges ought to be dismissed as an essential element of the offences has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The main issue is whether the prosecution has proven that the lands in question were a woodland as defined in the said By-Law. For the following reasons, I find the defendants guilty of both charges.

THE WITNESSES

[3] The main witness for the prosecution was David Pullen. He has been employed by the County of Huron as a Forest Conservation Officer for 14 years. He is a Registered Professional Forester (RPF). He oversees, enforces and conducts investigations in terms of enforcement of the Huron County Conservation By-Law 38-2013. He also provides extensive education and outreach work with local community groups and woodland owners around general forest management practices, improvement of woodlands and how to be in compliance with the By-Law. As a Registered Professional Forester, he has a 4 year degree in crop science plant physiology, completed a nationwide competency assessment process which included forest management, administration of forestry, professional ethics, as well as at least 5 years experience. He has 22 years in municipal forestry. He has extensive experience in forestry as well with the particulars of the By-Law.

[4] The prosecution chose not to attempt to qualify him as an expert. Mr. Pullen expressed his "opinion" several times throughout his testimony. He was not qualified to give opinion evidence and thus his evidence will not be accepted as opinion evidence. This does not mean, however, that his evidence is not compelling as he is able to provide evidence based on his extensive experience which includes his role as a Forest Conservation Officer and as a Registered Professional Forester (RPF). I find that Mr. Pullen gave credible and compelling evidence that was consistent within itself and mostly consistent with the other witness and was not shaken in cross examination. There were minor inconsistencies that were inconsequential and of no relevance to the issue of whether the lands in question were a woodland. I accept his evidence.

[5] The second witness for the prosecution was Nicole Bean who worked for the County of Huron at the relevant time. She was a Geographic Information Systems Technician, or a GIS technician. She has extensive experience working with specialized equipment that provides geospatial data, using GPS equipment. She would collect the data and analyze it. She created maps and a methodology and qualifications, as well as took photos of the lands in question. She attended with Mr. Pullen at his request and collected the data for 2 plots of trees from which was extrapolated a calculation of the area in question and the number of trees involved. I find that Ms. Bean gave credible and compelling evidence that was consistent within itself and with mostly consistent with the other witness and was not shaken in cross examination. There were minor inconsistencies that were inconsequential and of no relevance to the issues. I accept her evidence.

[6] The third witness was Nicholas Courtney, who at the time of his testimony, was the Restoration Program Manager for Forests Ontario which is a nonprofit organization that subsidizes tree planting for private lands. Although he is not a Registered Professional Forester, he is a provisional member of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association. He is a plan approver for the Ontario Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program. He is also a Certified Tree Marker and as such, marks trees for harvest under the direction of a Registered Professional Forrester. In January and February 2021, he worked for GWG Resources providing forest consultation services for private landowners including forest management activities and tree marking. Mr. Courtney prepared a tree marking prescription, that was approved by Greg Greer an Ontario Professional Forrester with GWG Resources, for the lands in question at the request of Mr. Terpstra who wanted to have ash trees that were dying removed and not allowed to fall on the forest floor. This prescription was approved on July 19, 2021, by Greg Greer, a Registered Professional Forrester. I find Mr. Courtney gave credible and compelling evidence that was consistent within itself was not shaken in cross examination. I accept his evidence.

THE EVIDENCE

[7] Mr. Pullen, a Registered Professional Forrester, testified that as part of his role as the County of Huron's Forest Conservation Officer he receives and reviews Notices of Intent under the By-law by submitted on behalf of landowners who want to harvest or destroy trees in the woodlands. These Notices of Intent, which include a tree marking prescription also known as a silvicultural prescription, are prepared and approved by other Registered Professional Foresters and thus he has a higher degree of confidence that the woodland is being managed in accordance with the by-law. Exhibit 6 is one such Notice of Intent dated January 20, 2021, prepared on behalf of Joe Terpstra by Nick Courtney, (as the tree marker), and Greg Greer (as the Registered Professional Forrester) of GWG Resource Services for the south half of lot 24, concession 12. The attached Tree Marking Prescription for "lot 23 and S pt lot 24" called for the removal of ash trees with retention of the other species namely soft maple, black cherry, white elm, poplar, eastern hemlock, among others. Mr. Pullen also met with Mr. Terpstra on January 28, 2021, at Mr. Terpstra's request as he wanted to do some assessment on it and was hoping to remove the woodlot and convert it to agriculture. After a more extensive walk through the bush, Mr. Pullen believed it would qualify as a woodland under the Forest Conservation By-Law and informed Mr. Terpstra the woodland could be managed selectively in accordance with the bylaw but that it could not be cleared for agriculture. I accept this evidence.

[8] On June 5, 2023, Mr. Pullen had occasion to pass by the site on his way home from a meeting. He saw a number of large piles of trees, larger trees had been pushed up into heaps and appeared to have been pulled out by the roots or cut off. He could see these large piles from the road. He was surprised given that he had received and reviewed the Notice of Intent the previous year that was a good plan to just remove ash trees. He believed that there had been clear cutting. As a result, he sent a Stop Work Order pursuant to the By-Law dated June 8, 2023: see exhibit 7. It was served by registered mail. The Stop Work Order stated: please be advised that no further activity should occur with trees on this site until further notice, including the burning of piles. Mr. Pullen testified that one of the purposes of a stop work order is to preserve evidence. I accept this evidence.

[9] On July 20, 2023, Mr. Pullen was attending another call related to a different woodland and had to drive on McNaught Line which runs just to the east of the lands in question. He looked across the field, and because there was only a narrow strip of woodland left, he was to see through it now to the area that had been cleared. He observed a bulldozer. He observed that all the piles he had observed on June 5 th had disappeared, so they could no longer be seen from the road. The existence of the bulldozer led him to believe that the site was being graded or grubbing had occurred. From his experience, trees had been pulled out with an excavator, some of which had likely been cut beforehand, and then the bulldozer would be grading. I accept this evidence.

[10] On August 2, 2023, Mr. Pullen and Ms. Bean went to the property with a search warrant. In the southwest corner of the cleared area, a burn pile was still smoking. As a result, he believed that burning had occurred after June 8 th , being the date of the stop work order, as well as after July 20 th . I accept Mr. Pullen's evidence and find that piles of trees had been removed and burning occurred between June 8 th and August 2 nd , and that this burning amounts to work, as well as destruction of potential evidence. This would clearly fall within the time frame of Mary 1, 2023 to July 31, 2023, as set out in the Information. I am therefore satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that there was noncompliance with the Stop Work order dated June 8, 2023, as set out in count 3 for each of the defendants.

[11] As indicated above, Mr. Pullen was not qualified to give expert evidence, and as such, although he expressed his "opinion" several times, his evidence is not expert evidence. He has extensive experience and is quite knowledgeable being a Registered Professional Forester whose job involves extensive knowledge of the by-law and its application. Ultimately, it is for me to determine whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that lands in question are a woodland as defined in the by-law.

[12] I have carefully reviewed the exhibits and the evidence of Mr. Pullen and Ms. Bean. Exhibit 15 is an aerial view of the lands from 1955, exhibit 16 is an aerial view of the lands from 1978, Exhibit 17 is an aerial view of the lands from 2006, Exhibit 11 is the aerial view of the lands from 2020. These aerial photographs are available to the public by way of a GIS website with the County of Huron. In fact, one of the aerial photos was attached to the Notice of Intent set out in Exhibit 6. In each of the exhibits, the land in question, namely Con 12 Lot 23 S PT Lot 24 is outlined in red. It is evident that there are trees in the southeast corner of the lands that extend continuously into the south and to the east of the markings in red. The shape of the parcel is the same throughout. The lower southeast corner shape of the woodland appears to be the same throughout. Exhibits 12, 13 and 14 are close ups of the wooded area. It is clear from these close ups that the area is dense and full of trees. I accept this evidence.

[13] Mr. Pullen and Ms. Bean entered the lands in question pursuant to a search warrant on August 8 th . They were there to inspect the lands, to collect data to determine whether there had been a woodlot destruction and to identify the location of woodland qualification plots which would then be used to extrapolate data to determine the size of the lands that had been cleared and give an approximation of the number of trees that had been removed. Mr. Pullen estimated, simply by looking at the size of the area and relying upon his many years of agricultural and forestry practice, that at least 5 acres or 2 hectares of woodland was missing from the overall woodland.

[14] Obviously, it is impossible to know how many trees were removed simply by looking at the cleared lands. The size of the clearing would need to be calculated. There would then have to be some way to determine, with some accuracy, the number of trees removed. Mr. Pullen testified that this is done by using qualitative plots where in the types of trees and the number of trees are examined and counted. He said that there was an "unwritten methodology". He believed that there was a different tree composition on the east side from that on the west side of the area that was cleared, and thus determined that 2 qualitative plots were appropriate. The plots were 10 m x 10 m which is 100 square meters. There are 10,000 square meters in a hectare, thus the plots are 1/100 th of a hectare. Using math, the number of trees in the plot could be multiplied by 100 to give the number of trees per hectare. Mr. Pullen testified that the average of the number of trees in the two plots was used to give a good estimate of what was in the cleared areas. I accept this evidence.

[15] Mr. Pullen testified that he was careful to not pick an area that appeared to be really high density which would favour the investigation, and that an area was chosen that was average and consistent with what was being seen in the woodland. This would err on the side of fewer trees. He marked the qualitative plots while Ms. Bean took GPS points. She also took photographs. The data was then analysed by a specialized software along with 2020 aerial photos to generate a polygon feature that identified the are of damage. Ms. Bean also counted trees within the plots. Exhibit 9 is the report prepared by Ms. Bean dated August 9, 2023, titled "Forest Conservation By-Law-GPS Inspection Methodology". I accept this evidence.

[16] From the analysis of the data collected, it was determined that 6.8 acres or 2.75 hectares of trees had been destroyed. There were charred remains of thousands of trees. This was greater than Mr. Pullen's visual estimate of 5 acres. The red outline and markings in exhibits 12, 13 and 14 show the area of the cleared trees. I accept this evidence.

[17] The first plot was located to the west of the cleared area as set out in exhibit 12. The total tree count was 152. It consisted of hard maple, black cherry, white ash, and elm all of which are protected by the By-Law. Using the math from above, this would be extrapolated to 15,200 trees (152 X 100). The second plot was located to the east of the cleared area as set out in exhibit 12. The total tree count was 57. It consisted of soft maple, elm, ash, birch, and hard maple, all of which are protected by the By-Law. This would extrapolate to 5,700 trees (57 X 100). If the 2 plots are averaged together, then the extrapolation would be approximately 10,450 trees. I accept this evidence.

[18] Mr. Hunsberger submitted that there were several why the prosecution had not proven that the lands in question was a woodland. These arguments primarily dealt with the evidence of Mr. Pullen and the inadequate investigation.

[19] Mr. Hunsberger argued that there were no notes of the attendance by Mr. Pullen at the lands at the request of Mr. Terpstra in January 2021. I reject the argument that this somehow diminishes Mr. Pullen's evidence. Although Mr. Pullen did not have any notes of his attendance at the lands at the request of Mr. Terpstra in January 2021, his belief at the time that he thought the lands in question was a woodland was based on his experience as a Registered Professional Forester and his knowledge of the workings of the By-law. Had this been the only evidence of whether this was a woodland as defined in the by-law, it would clearly have not been sufficient to prove that it was a woodland, but it in no way diminishes Mr. Pullen's evidence.

[20] Mr. Hunsberger further argued that the municipality placed a high onus in the By-Law given that there is a number of trees specified in the By-law (ie 1000) and that this means there must be some sort of counting of trees. He argues that what was done in this case was not adequate, nor was there any evidence that what was done was to an industry standard. Mr. Hunsberger further argues that Mr. Pullen was not allowed to give expert testimony, and thus there is no evidence the methodology he used in terms of determining the plots is to an industry standard and that his conclusions ought to be rejected. I reject these arguments. Firstly, while Mr. Pullen was not qualified as an expert, he does have extensive knowledge and experience as a Registered Professional Forester and with the workings of the By-Law in question. For the past 14 years, he has been the Forest Conservation Officer for the County of Huron and is responsible for the investigations, enforcement, and education of the By-law. Secondly, although it was an "unwritten methodology", it does not mean that there even is an industry standard as the argument seems to suggest. Certainly, this was not suggested to Mr. Pullen in cross examination. Thirdly, in my view, the methodology used was reasonable and based on common sense. The use of the 10m X 10 m plot size was reasonable. While different locations of the plots could have been used, the locations chosen were also reasonable given their proximity to the cleared lands and thus the extrapolation calculation was reasonable. As Mr. Pullen said, "that was the best we could do with what we were working with, and with the amount of woodland that had been cleared".

[21] Mr. Hunsberger further argues that the investigation was inadequate and there was a lack of corroboration. No pictures were taken of the trees in the plots, no arial photos were taken of the cleared area, no pictures were taken on June 5 th or July 20 th when Mr. Pullen drove by and thus there was no proof that trees were felled, or piles were burning, or that there was a bulldozer, and finally, there was no "GoPro" video while they were walking around the plots on August 2 nd . I reject these arguments. Firstly, while pictures are sometimes helpful, I do not find the lack of pictures for these distracts from the veracity and reliability of Mr. Pullen's evidence with respect to his observation on the days in question. Certainly, Ms. Bean's observations on August 2 corroborate his observations. Secondly, some of the pictures found in exhibit 10 were taken on August 2 nd show stumps still smoldering, cleared land looking west at woody debris, cleared land looking east at the remaining woodlot edge, charred woody debris.

[22] Mr. Hunsberger further argues that there is no evidence of any offences occurring July 31, 2023, being the last date alleged in the wording of the charges and that this should also raise a reasonable doubt. I reject this argument. The wording of the charges alleges a time frame between March 1 and July 31, 2023. It does not mean that something must have occurred on March 1 and July 31 and that the prosecution must prove this. When a date range is given, there only needs to be evidence of the allegations having occurred within the time frame, and not necessarily on any specific date. I accept Mr. Pullen's evidence with respect to the time frame being sometime prior to May given the piles he saw on June 5 th which he believed had been pulled out prior to leafing out in the spring and then the burning occurring right up to 3 days before attending on August 2 nd with search warrant, and thus the dates of the allegation have been proven.

WOODLAND

[23] The definition of "woodlands" is set out in the By-Law in s. 1(u) as follows:

"Woodlands" or "Woodland" means land at least one hectare (2.47 acres or more in area with at least

(i) 1000 trees of any size, per hectare (405 trees per acre)

[24] Regardless of which plot size is used, the area of land that was cleared of trees meets the definition of woodlands in the By-Law. The size of the tree does not matter. The area cleared was 2.75 hectares. If plot #1 is used in the extrapolation calculation, then the number of trees in 2.75 hectares was 15,200 or over 5,527 trees per hectare. If plot #2 is used in the extrapolation calculation, then the number of trees in 2.75 hectares was 5,700 or over 2,072 trees per hectare. If they are averaged together, then the number of trees in 2.75 acres was 10,450 or 3800 trees per hectare. I find that the area that was cleared was a woodland as defined in the By-Law.

[25] I accept Mr. Pullen's evidence. He was credible and forthright. He was thoroughly challenged in cross examination; however, his testimony withstood the extensive cross examination and was not diminished. Not only does he have extensive experience, in my view, his approach to determining whether the cleared lands would be a woodland as set out in the By-law was reasonable, well thought out and was based on common sense. Looking at historical aerial maps, taking measurements, using GPS devices and software to calculate sizes of areas, counting trees in a reasonable size plot and using math to extrapolate numbers is an effective way to estimate the size of a woodland that has been completely destroyed.

CONCLUSIONS

[26] I find that Joseph Terpstra is the sole director of 1866025 ONTARIO INC which is the owner of Lot 23 Con 12 S Pt lot 24 Municipality of Huron East, formerly known as Township of Grey, in the County of Huron. Pursuant to s. 9(7) of the By-Law, the owner shall be presumed to have injured, destroyed, caused or permitted the injury or destruction of trees located in a woodland and presumed to have contravened or caused or permitted the contravention of a stop work order, which said presumption may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary on a balance of probabilities. I find that the lands in question were a woodland. I find that there was a failure to comply with the stop work order issued June 8, 2025, given the piles of trees observed on June 5 th had been cleared and the burning observed on July 20 th , and the burning that had occurred by July 31 st . I find that the woodland had been destroyed sometime between March 31 and July 31, 2023.

[27] Joseph Terpstra as the director and 1866 Ontario Inc as the owner caused or permitted this destruction of this woodland and failed to comply with the Stop Work order. I am therefore satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt all the essential elements for the 2 offences as against both defendants have been proven. Convictions will register against both defendants for the 2 offences.

Released: September 18, 2025

Signed: Justice of the Peace Anna M. Hampson