Paul McCulloch

The applicant, a construction company, sought leave to appeal from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice dismissing its appeal from sentences imposed for environmental offences.

The company was convicted of two counts of discharging material into a watercourse contrary to the Ontario Water Resources Act and two counts of failing to notify the Ministry of the Environment of those discharges.

The total sentence imposed was $220,000 in fines.

The applicant argued the fines were excessive and that aggravating and mitigating circumstances should have been weighed differently.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error of principle and noting that the sentencing judge's weighing of relevant factors was owed deference.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal upholding a Director's order under s. 18 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The order required the appellants, as owners or former owners/occupiers of a contaminated source property, to delineate contamination that had migrated to off-site properties.

The appellants argued s. 18 was limited to future events and on-site remediation, contrasting it with the fault-based s. 17.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's broad interpretation of s. 18—that it permits off-site orders and applies to existing, ongoing, and future adverse effects—was reasonable and consistent with the modern principles of statutory interpretation.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges under the Environmental Protection Act for operating a waste disposal site without a Certificate of Approval and disposing of waste contrary to their Waste Management System Approval.

The core issue was whether the respondent's approval for "collection, handling and transportation" implicitly included storage.

The court found that storage was not authorized and that the trial judge erred in her interpretation of the approval and the application of due diligence.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a stay of proceedings was ordered, as further proceedings were deemed not in the interests of justice.

The appellant challenged a conviction for failing to report a blasting incident that propelled fly-rock into the air and damaged nearby property.

The Court held that the reporting duty under the Environmental Protection Act is triggered where a contaminant is discharged out of the normal course of events and there is or may be an adverse effect, without requiring proof of actual impairment to the natural environment.

It emphasized the statute’s broad remedial purpose and confirmed that each branch of the adverse-effect definition independently engages the duty to notify the regulator.

On the facts, the discharge caused significant property damage and potential serious harm, requiring immediate reporting.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was engaged in a blasting operation that sent fly-rock onto neighbouring private property, causing damage.

The appellant did not report the incident to the Ministry of the Environment and was charged with failing to report the discharge of a contaminant under s. 15(1) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The appellant argued that reporting was only required if the discharge caused non-trivial harm to the natural environment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory definition of 'adverse effect' includes property damage as an independent trigger for liability, regardless of whether the natural environment itself is harmed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a Superior Court decision convicting it of failing to report a discharge of a contaminant under the Environmental Protection Act.

The incident involved fly-rock from a blasting operation that damaged a house and a vehicle.

The moving party argued that the duty to report requires a more than trivial environmental impact.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the interpretation of the duty to report raises a question of law and is essential in the public interest.