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 on: September 18, 2025

Counsel:

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

Decision

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE HAMPSON:

Conviction and Findings

[1] On September 18, 2025, I released written reasons finding Joseph Terpstra as the sole director of 1866025 ONTARIO INC and 1866025 ONTARIO INC as 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, guilty of violating the Huron County Conservation By-Law 38-2013, known as the "Forest Conservation By-Law", by destroying a woodland and failing to comply with a stop work order for the said lands. 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 found that the lands in question were a woodland. I found that there was a failure to comply with the stop work order issued June 8, 2025, given the piles of trees observed on June 5th had been cleared and the burning observed on July 20th, and the burning that had occurred by July 31st. I found that the woodland had been destroyed sometime between March 31 and July 31, 2023.

[2] The matter was put over for sentencing. Written submissions were received and filed by the prosecution on September 19th and by the defendant on September 26th. The written submissions were fulsome and clearly set out each party's position on sentencing.

Penalty Provisions

[3] The penalty provision in the By-Law is set out as follows:

s.8(1) Any person who contravenes section 2 or 6 of this By-Law or an Order issued pursuant to s.7 of this By-Law or permits or causes such conduct is guilty of an offence and is liable:

(a) on first conviction, to a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or $1000.00 per tree injured or destroyed, whichever is greater; and

(b) on any subsequent conviction, to a fine of not more than $25,000.00 or $2000.00 per tree injured or destroyed, whichever is greater.

(2) Despite subsection (1), where the person convicted is a corporation,

(a) the maximum fines in clause (1)(a) are $50,000.00 or $5000.00 per tree injured or destroyed; and

(b) the maximum fines in clause (1)(b) are $100,000.00 or $10,000.00 per tree injured or destroyed.

(3) If a person is convicted of contravening this By-Law or an Order issued pursuant to section 7 of this By-Law, the court in which the conviction has been entered, and any court of competent jurisdiction thereafter, may order the person to rehabilitate the land or to plant or replant trees in such a manner and within such period as the court considers appropriate, including any silvicultural treatment necessary to re-establish the trees.

s.9(8) An officer or director of a corporation who permits, causes or acquiesces to an act or omission of the corporation which contravenes this By-law is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is subject to the fines, penalties and orders prescribed in this By-Law for the act or omission of the corporation.

Prosecution's Position on Sentencing

[4] The prosecution submits that the defendants ought to be fined as well as placed on a 2 year probation order, and that the fines ought to be assessed as against both defendants for each of their respective convictions. The prosecution submits that the appropriate fines are:

Joseph Terpstra as a director of 1866025 ONTARIO INC:

• $150,000 for destroying the woodland
• $25,000 failing to comply with the stop work order

1866025 ONTARIO INC. as the owner of the lands:

• $300,000 for destroying the woodland
• $25,000 for failing to comply with the stop work order

[5] While conceding that the defendants are not "the worse offenders", the prosecution submits that they are approaching that upper limit. The prosecution submits that there are 4 aggravating factors. Firstly, the defendants knew the lands in question could not be cleared given the Notice of Intent on January 21, 2021, prepared on their behalf that provided for the removal of only ash trees. Secondly, was the attendance with Mr. Pullen on January 28, 2021, at Mr. Terpstra's request, wherein he told Mr. Terpstra that the land was a woodland and could not be cleared for agricultural purposes. Thirdly, the additional aggravating factor was the number of trees that were destroyed and relied upon Mr. Pullen's estimate of 24,000 trees. As the defendant rightly points out, this number was not the finding that I made in the decision. Fourthly, the prosecution submits that the defendants have used the additional 6.25 acres of land for agricultural purposes for financial gain. Thus, the prosecution submits that the fines must be significant to adequately address the principle of denunciation in terms of specific and general deterrence. The prosecution further submits that a probation order is appropriate as well to ensure future compliance by the defendants.

Defence's Position on Sentencing

[6] The defendants requested an adjournment of the sentencing to explore a replanting plan with the assistance of an expert. The defendants are not offering a replanting plan. The defendants submit that the fines being requested by the prosecution are excessive and that any probation order would be harsh. The defendants submit that the fines should be more in the range of $68,000 to $80,000 in total and that there is no need for a probation order.

[7] The defendants submit that there are mitigating factors. There is no record for either defendant as they are first time offenders. Mr. Terpstra is "an old man" and intends to farm the land until he dies and never intends to sell the land for profit. He plants and harvests navy beans and corn at this farm and earns the family $500/acre to $600/acre per season. Mr. Terpstra as the sole director of the corporation made the decision to destroy the trees and will bear the cost of any fine levied against the corporation as well as himself and thus is being punished twice.

Court's Analysis

Number of Trees Destroyed

[8] Obviously, it is impossible to know how many trees were removed simply by looking at the cleared lands. I found that the methodology used was reasonable and 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.

[9] I found that Joseph Terpstra was the sole director of 1866025 ONTARIO INC and therefore, he is liable for the fines set out in s.8(2) being the same fines for a corporation. I found that the number of trees destroyed was between 15,200 and 5,700, with the average of the 2 being 10,450 trees. The maximum penalty for a corporation is $50,000 or $5000 per tree which ever is greater. This would result in fines in the number of millions of dollars. The prosecution suggests the total amount of fines should be $500,000.00 apportioned above.

Aggravating Factors

[10] I agree that there are significant aggravating factors as set out in paragraph 5 above. The Notice of Intent dated January 21, 2021, indicated that only ash trees were going to be removed and were going to be specifically marked while maintaining soft maple, white cedar, green ash, basswood, American beech, eastern hemlock. Secondly, the attendance by Mr. Pullen at Mr. Terpstra's request on January 28, 2021, during which Mr. Terpstra was told that the land could not be cleared for agricultural purposes. The aggravating factor is that the only reasonable inference is that Mr. Terpstra would have known that the land could not be cleared. Thirdly, although I found that the number of trees destroyed was between 5,700 and 15,200 with the average being 10,450, and not the 24,000 submitted by the prosecution, the number of trees destroy was substantial and of great significance. Lastly, I found that there continued to be burning on the area after the stop work order of June 8, 2023 was served, namely before July 21st and again by the end of July. This amounted to a destruction of evidence as well.

Mitigating Factors

[11] Aside from the age of the defendant and that these are first convictions, I find very little mitigating factors. No financial or other documents were provided to support the submission about how much money the family earns. It is simply a statement. This would amount to $3400 to $4080 that would be generated for the destroyed woodland. However, no financial documents were provided to assess the value of the land owned by the corporation. It would be reasonable to expect that farmland has significant value however there is no evidence to determine the value. In the circumstances, the defendant has not provided evidence that would assist me in determining the ability to pay a fine, whether this is the sole income he has, whether there is other income that is generated from other sources, whether there are any other assets. This does not mean that significant fines cannot be imposed. One's ability to pay a fine is an important factor, however, it is not the only factor.

Sentencing Principles

[12] Unlike the principles of sentencing set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, the Provincial Offences Act is silent with respect to the sentencing principles. However, case law has determined that the primary principles of sentencing in regulatory offences are deterrence and denunciation: see R v. Cotton Felts Ltd., [1982] O.J. No 178 (C.A.); New Mex Canada Inc. 2019 ONCA 30. The other principles of sentencing, namely proportionality, restraint, parity, totality and rehabilitation can also be considered.

[13] The Huron County Forest Conservation By-Law is a regulatory scheme that is given the same effect as a regulatory statute. It is designed to prohibit or regulate the destruction of trees in woodlands as defined in the By-Law. The penalty provisions are detailed and provide for significant monetary penalties for violations such as occurred in the circumstances before me. It is a validly enacted By-law that must be accepted as essential in the public interest and must be complied with. The County of Huron validly enacted the penalty provisions within the by-law.

[14] As set out in paragraphs 19 and 20 of Cotton Felts, the paramount importance is deterrence. The amount of fine will be determined by a consideration of the size of the corporation, the economic activity involved, the extent of actual and potential harm to the public and the maximum penalty prescribed in the By-Law and cannot be seen as a cost for doing business. The amount of the fine will be determined by the need to enforce regulatory standards by deterrence. As Justice Linden said in R v. Hoffman-LaRoche Limited (No.2) (1980), 30 OR (2d) 461:

In conclusion, I feel that a fine that is more than nominal, but which is not harsh, would be appropriate in this case. The amount must be substantial and significant so that it will not be viewed as merely a licence for illegality, nor as a mere slap on the wrist. The amount must be one that would be felt by the defendant. It should also serve as a warning to others who might be minded to engage in similar criminal activity that will be costly for them to do so even if they do not succeed in their illegal aims.

Consideration of Case Law

[15] Aside from Cotton Felts, the cases relied upon by the prosecution, and the defence, are of limited assistance and are not binding upon me. Most importantly, the possible fines in those cases, as well as the case before me, are based upon the fine ranges provided in the specific By-law or statute. In R v. Vastis 2006 ONCJ 347, the by-law in question provided for a fine of not more than $5000 or to a term of imprisonment up to 3 months or both. The Forestry Act provided for a fine up to $20,000 or to imprisonment up to 3 months or both. In Hamilton (City) v. McNiven 2019 ONCJ 974, the by-law in question provides for a first conviction of a fine of not more than $10,000 as well as a replanting order and a prohibition order. These penalty provisions are significantly different than what is provide in the Forest Conservation By-Law before me as set out in paragraph 3 above. Thus, the fines ordered in these cases are of no assistance in determining the appropriate fines in the case before me. The assessment of the fines must be imposed within the context of this By-Law. The defendant relied upon the case of R. v. Iacobelli [2005] O.J. No. 833 in support of the argument that the replanting plan with the lower cost ought to be imposed. However, the defendant is not offering a replanting plan, and therefore I place no weight on this case or submission.

Appropriate Sentencing Approach

[16] The amount of the fines must be substantial and significant and cannot be seen as a cost of doing business. The fines cannot be seen as a licence for illegality, nor as a mere slap on the wrist. There must be specific deterrence to the defendants. In addition, there are significant general deterrence considerations. The By-Law is to be complied with. Other farmers and landowners must understand that if there is a violation of the By-Law such that a woodland is destroyed or that stop work orders are ignored, then there will be serious financial consequences for such destruction. In all the circumstances, Mr. Terpstra went ahead and cleared the land and burned it anyways in full defiance. This cannot be condoned by modest penalties.

Director and Corporate Liability

[17] Mr. Terpstra is the sole director of 1866025 Ontario Inc.. It was incorporated on January 9, 2012. He is the operating mind of the corporation. Setting up a corporation is a business and legal decision. Generally, there are significant benefits to having a corporation, including tax consequences, financial implications and liability limitations. The land is owned by the corporation. The corporation would have its own ability to raise funds, incur debt, get loans or mortgages, have employees, payout dividends if there are shareholders, etc. I disagree that imposing fines on Mr. Terpstra and the corporation is tantamount to punishing him twice. This is not a Kienapple situation. There is no ability to impose a "joint and severable" fine.

Conclusions

[18] I find that significant monetary penalties are appropriate as against both defendants. I also find that a period of probation is appropriate. A Probation Order is not the same thing as what is set out in the By-Law. A probation order can be part of a sentence where appropriate. Given the aggravating factors set out in paragraph 10 and in particular, the destruction of the woodland and continued burning, a probation order is necessary. A probation order is not harsh.

[19] There will be a period of probation for 2 years as against both defendants. In addition to the statutory terms, the defendants cannot commit the same offences or any other offence which could result in custody. There is no reporting required. The defendants must advise of any change in address.

[20] Joseph Terpstra was the sole director of 1866025 ONTARIO INC and therefore, he is liable for the fines set out in s.8(2) being the same fines for a corporation. I found that the number of trees destroyed was between 15,200 and 5,700, with the average of the 2 being 10,450 trees. The maximum penalty for a corporation is $50,000 or $5000 per tree which ever is greater.

Fines Imposed

[21] The fines imposed are:

Joseph Terpstra:

• Count #1 destroying the woodland: $175,000
• Count #3 disobeying the stop work order: $25,000

1866025 ONTARIO INC:

• Count #1: destroying the woodland: $175,000
• Count #3: disobeying the stop work order: $25,000

[22] A reasonable time to pay will be offered to the defendants. As always, if more time to pay is needed, the defendants are able to bring applications to the court for an extension of time to pay. Good faith efforts must be made and demonstrated and generally that means significant payments are to be made given the time to pay on the sentencing.

Released: September 18, 2025

Signed: Justice of the Peace Anna M. Hampson