NEB - Government of Canada Pipeline Regulations: Criminalization of Farming?

New pipeline regulations proposed by the National Energy Board (NEB) shift the burden of constructing, operating and maintaining safe pipelines to farmers, who will face near automatic Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMPs) or even Criminal Code prosecutions for failing to warn pipeline companies when pipelines cannot safely accommodate farming practices.  Doesn't this sound backwards?  On behalf of CAEPLA and landowners across Canada, the Manitoba Pipeline Landowners Association (MPLA) submitted the letter below to the NEB urging the regulator to shift the burden to make pipelines safe back to pipeline companies where it belongs, and to avoid making criminals out of landowners and farmers. 

October 20, 2014

 

Proposed NEB Pipeline Damage Prevention Regulations

Sheri Young
Secretary of the Board
National Energy Board
517 Tenth Avenue S.W.
Calgary, AB   T2R 0A8

Dear Madam Secretary:

RE:          Manitoba Pipeline Landowners Association (MPLA)

               Comments on Proposed Amendments to Regulations for Pipeline Damage Prevention

---

We are the lawyers for the Manitoba Pipeline Landowners Association (MPLA) and are writing in response to the NEB’s letter of September 18, 2014 to provide MPLA’s comments concerning the proposed amendments to pipeline damage prevention regulations.    MPLA is a voluntary association of Enbridge pipeline landowners in Manitoba, most of whom have between 6 and 8 pipelines crossing one or more of their properties (with at least one additional pipeline being proposed at present).  MPLA landowners and all NEB-regulated pipeline landowners across Canada are directly affected by Section 112 of the NEB Act and its related regulations.  MPLA is taking the lead on behalf of the Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations (CAEPLA), of which MPLA is a member association, in responding to the NEB’s proposed regulatory amendments.  MPLA’s comments should be taken as those of pipeline landowners across Canada.

This marks the third time that MPLA has written to the NEB concerning the most recent round of proposed changes to Pipeline Crossing Regulations.  CAEPLA also provided comments to the NEB on previously proposed changes to the regulations dating back more than a decade.  Unfortunately, the currently proposed amendments demonstrate that the NEB is still not listening to the concerns of pipeline landowners.  The amendments do nothing to introduce fairness for agricultural landowners into the regulatory scheme.

As set out in MPLA’s comments to the NEB in February, 2013 on the NEB Discussion Paper, Section 112 of the NEB Act leaves landowners carrying an unfair burden in ensuring pipeline safety in Canada.  Restrictions on agricultural operations over and near pipelines are only necessary where companies have failed to ensure that the condition and location of their pipelines are adequate to accommodate agricultural operations.  Fairness dictates that pipeline companies, which have obtained land rights by expropriation or by agreement made through the threat of expropriation, should be required to accommodate farming.  However, as is apparent in the latest proposed amendments to the regulations, the NEB is continuing to move in the opposite direction – creating regulations that absolve pipeline companies from the duty to build, maintain and operate safe pipelines by restricting agricultural operations and exposing pipeline landowners to regulatory and penal liability.

Once again, MPLA urges the NEB to reverse this course by making amendments to the regulations that restore a landowner’s ability to carry out agricultural operations without the constant fear of contravening the NEB Act and regulations and of incurring the penalties that will result.  The starting point is to prescribe an exemption for all agricultural activities from the requirements to obtain NEB and/or company permission in Sections 112(1) and 112(2).  Then, similar to the proposed Section 10.1 of the proposed Damage Prevention Regulations, Part 2, the regulations would also provide that, if a pipeline company determined that agricultural activities could jeopardize the safe and secure operation of a pipeline, the pipeline company would be required to identify affected locations and advise landowners and farmers in writing of those locations and the reasons for the determination.  The pipeline company would then have two options for addressing its safety and security concerns:

 

1.       Remove, repair, modify, relocate or replace its pipeline so as to ensure that agricultural activities will not jeopardize the safe and secure operation of the pipeline; or,

2.       Provide affected landowners and farmers with clear written direction on any restrictions to be applied to agricultural operations in specified locations and pay the landowners and farmers compensation for any resulting business losses or other related damages or loss.

This proposal is consistent with the principles that should apply to the interaction between pipeline companies and landowners under the NEB Act – that pipeline companies are responsible to build, operate and maintain their pipelines safely, and that landowners are to be compensated for the imposition of pipelines on their properties and on their businesses.  MPLA’s proposed amendments do not compromise pipeline safety.  Instead, they shift the primary safety and security decision-making burden off of the backs of landowners and farmers and onto pipeline companies where it should be.  Landowners and farmers should not be placed in the position of having to decide whether a pipeline is safe or not and of having to face regulatory and penal liability if they are wrong.

As MPLA previously stated in its February, 2013 comments, pipeline companies have the resources and expertise to make this work.  They can obtain equipment specifications directly from farm equipment manufacturers; they can determine the surface loading and other impacts generated by farming activities; they already possess information (or should possess information) about the location, depth and condition of their pipes.  Where site specific locations are identified that will not accommodate the impacts of all farming activities, pipeline companies can determine what work is necessary to accommodate farming or what restrictions may be necessary.  And pipeline companies can compensate landowners and farmers for restrictions that are necessitated by the unsafe condition of their pipes.

Without this shift of responsibility to pipeline companies, Section 112 of the NEB Act and the related regulations will continue to work an injustice for landowners and farmers across Canada.  How else can one describe a situation where a Canadian farmer faces at a minimum an “administrative monetary penalty” of no less than $1,000.00 (or $4,000 for a corporation) for failure to notify a pipeline company that its pipeline is unsafe?  And the farmer has been deprived of any defence of due diligence, has no ability to appeal a decision of the NEB on the matter, and faces public denunciation by the NEB?  MPLA and its members are very concerned about the opportunities for abuse by pipelines companies that have been created by the administrative monetary penalty regime.  The answer is for the NEB to make the amendments proposed above by MPLA so that pipeline landowners and farmers do not face punishment on account of the failure of pipeline companies to build, operate and maintain safe pipelines.

The NEB should stop covering up for the inadequacies and deficiencies in pipelines on the backs of Canadian landowners and farmers.  Safety is in everyone’s interest, but it is the pipeline companies that should be responsible for safety.  MPLA and pipeline landowners across Canada hope that the NEB will take advantage of this opportunity to enhance pipeline safety while making the pipeline regulatory scheme fairer for landowners and farmers.

Yours truly,

 

John D. Goudy

c.c.:        MPLA, Board of Directors

City of Burnaby challenges NEB on access rights of companies for pre-approval project work - NEB sides with company

The National Energy Board (NEB) is considering an application by Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Kinder Morgan) to access lands owned by or within the authority of the City of Burnaby for preliminary work related to the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project.  The work includes land surveying and related studies that Trans Mountain wishes to conduct in anticipation of the eventual approval of its project.  In particuar, the work relates to a new proposed pipeline route that was not inclued in Trans Mountain's original application for approval to the NEB. 

Burnaby has so far delayed in deciding on Trans Mountain's request for access over outstanding concerns about environmental protection, environmental remediation, safety and inadequate notice to owners.  A number of properties affected are located in conservation areas under the authority of the City, and the activities that may be carried out on lands dedicated for park and recreation use are extremely limited.  In other words, the proposed access and use of the lands being sought by Trans Mountain are in conflict with municipal by-laws.

Trans Mountain applied for access under Section 73(a) of the NEB Act, which sets out that the powers of a "company" include the power to enter onto land "lying in the intended route of its pipeline, and make surveys, examinations or other necessary arrangements on the land for fixing the site of the pipeline."  In past instances involving private landowners, the NEB has readily granted access to pipeline companies in spite of landowner objections and without the company having served a notice under Section 87 of the NEB Act.  Section 87 requires that a company serve a notice to landowners where the company requires their land for a pipeline.  The notice then provides protection to the landowner for any costs incurred in dealing with the proposed pipeline if the project is later withdrawn. 

Not surprisingly, the NEB has also ruled that the company can serve the Section 87 notice whenever it wants - there is no obligation on it to serve the notice prior to entering on lands pursuant to Section 83(a) even though the company obviously knows by that point that it "may require" the lands in question.

Burnaby challenged the NEB on Section 83(a) on a different basis.  First, Burnaby questioned whether a company may even apply for access under Section 83(a), arguing that the section does not provide for making such an application.  Second, Burnaby argued that Section 73 does not override provincial law or muncipal by-laws.  Burnaby submitted, "There is room for both the operation of Section 73(a) of the NEB Act and Burnaby's by-laws, if access to Burnaby lands is granted subject to Burnaby reviewing the Request and making a determination. Trans Mountain, for instance, would still be able to access the land to survey and examine, even if such access was subject to conditions imposed by Burnaby to protect the purpose for which the property was reserved [i.e. as park or conservation land], pursuant to its by-laws."

Burnaby also argued that Section 73(a) does not authorize the intentional disturbance of land as proposed by Trans Mountain, including the installation of infrastructure or facilities. 

A notice of constitutional question was filed with the NEB and the Attorneys General of Canada and the provinces and territories.  The specific issues raised were:

• Section 73(a) of the NEB Act does not empower the NEB to make orders that override provincial and municipal jurisdiction pursuant to Section 92(8) of the Constitution Act, 1867; and,
• In so far as Section 73(a) of the NEB Act purports to empower a company to enter land, Section 73(a) does not override municipal jurisdiction or by-laws enacted pursuant to the Community Charter, S.B.C. 2003, c. 26 and the Municipal Act, S.B.C. 1958, c. 32, as amended.  Further, or in the alternative, to the extent that they are able, Section 73(a) of the NEB Act and by-laws enacted pursuant to the Community Charter and the Municipal Act, as amended, must operate concurrently.

In a ruling made on August 19, the NEB rejected the submissions made by Burnaby.  The NEB ruled that, pursuant to Section 73(a), Trans Mountain has the power to enter into and on Burnaby land without Burnaby's agreement and Trans Mountain does not require a temporary access order for this purpose.  The NEB says that the Trans Mountain application was not one requesting temporary access; the NEB says the application was one only requesting confirmation of Trans Mountain's rights under the Act, which the NEB has now given.

On that basis, the NEB also found that the Notice of Constitutional Question was misdirected, saying that Trans Mountain did not apply for access.  The NEB added that it did not find that "co-operative federalism" should apply to or influence the powers of Trans Mountain under Section 73(a) of the NEB Act.

Since this decision was made, Burnaby's mayor has said that the City will continue to enforce its by-laws prohibiting access to Burnaby mountain.  We can speculate on what will happen if the City continues to hold out against Trans Mountain.  Trans Mountain would likely have to apply to the NEB for an access order (the application the NEB says Trans Mountain didn't already make).  Assuming the order would be granted, Burnaby could appeal the decision in court.  It would be helpful to have some judicial consideration of the NEB's interpretation of Section 83.  Individual landowners are generally in no position to fight this issue - the City of Burnaby may be in that position.

Manitoba Court determines that proposed pipeline is provincial, not federal

In a post last December, I reported about a case in Manitoba being fought over the jurisdiction of a proposed pipeline - federal or provincial.  A group of affected landowners had sought leave to appeal a decision of the Surface Rights Board and had also requested the judicial review of Manitoba's decision to approve the pipeline.  The leave to appeal matter was put on hold pending the outcome of the judicial review.  In January of this year, the Court of Queen's Bench issued its decision on the judicial review.

The landowners applied to the Court for an order declaring that the pipeline is interprovincial and, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of the Province of Manitoba.  They had previously applied to the National Energy Board (NEB) for the same order, but that application was rejected.

On the basis of the test set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Westcoast Energy Inc. v. Canada (National Energy Board), the Court ruled that the Manitoba pipeline was provincial in nature and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the Province.  The Court found that the EOG pipeline (the one at issue in the case) and the MIPL pipeline (the cross-border pipeline to which the EOG pipeline would connect) were not a single federal undertaking, and that the EOG pipeline is not integral to the operation of the MIPL pipeline.  On that basis, the EOG pipeline did not become part of the interprovincial MIPL pipeline for the purpose of determining its jurisdiction.  As the EOG pipeline is located within the boundaries of Manitoba, it is a provincial pipeline.

Read the decision at: Daniels et al v. EOG Resources et al.

OEB launches Energy East consultation

The Ontario Energy Board has set up a website with information about its pending public consultation on the TransCanada Energy East Project.  Although the project falls within the federal jurisdiction, the Province of Ontario intends to participate in the approval process as an intervenor and is seeking comments on the positions it should be taking on the following four areas of "potential impact":

The impacts on Ontario natural gas consumers in terms of rates, reliability and access to supply, especially those consumers in eastern and northern Ontario

The impacts on pipeline safety and the natural environment in Ontario

The impacts on local communities as well as First Nations and Métis communities

The short and long term economic impacts of the project in Ontario

Public meetings will be scheduled for February and March, 2014.

The website can be accessed at: The Ontario Energy Board Energy East Consultation.

 

Joint Review Panel Report on Northern Gateway Pipeline to be released on December 19

The Joint Review Panel (NEB) will release its report on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline on December 19, 2013 at 2:30 Calgary time. 

Is the pipeline provincial or inter-provincial?

Every so often, the question of whether a pipeline is subject to provincial regulation or to federal regulation (by the NEB) comes before the courts.  The issue is now before the courts in Manitoba according to a recent decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.  A number of landowners affected by a proposed pipeline filed applications for leave to appeal a decision of the Surface Rights Board of Manitoba to the Court of Appeal.  They then brought a motion seeking to adjourn the leave to appeal applications pending a decision of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench regarding a judicial review of the decsion by Mantioba's Minister of Innovation, Energy and Mines (the "Minister") to grant a permit to EOG Resources Canada Inc. (EOG) to construct the pipeline.

The intended purpose of the pipeline, which would cross through the landowners' properties, is to link up to another proposed pipeline that would cross the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border (the "MIPL Pipeline").  The MIPL pipeline project requires approval from the NEB as it is an interprovincial (federal) pipeline.

EOG maintains that, although its pipeline would connect directly to the interprovincial MIPL Pipeline, its pipeline is intended to be wholly within the province of Manitoba.  Therefore, the EOG pipeline would be subject to provincial approval, as was granted by the Minister.  The landowners contest the jurisdiction of the Minister and brought an application for judicial review of the Minister's decision to approve the pipeline on constitutional grounds.

EOG opposed the adjournment of the leave to appeal applications, asserting that a delay would cause it prejudice.  The Court disagreed.  It found that it was not a practical use of judicial resources to have two cases ongoing with respect to the same issues.  It also reasoned that the Court of Queen's Bench proceeding may result in additional evidence necessary to determine the constitutional issue (i.e. the jursidiction of the proposed pipeline).  The Court of Appeal found that these reasons outweighed any potential prejudice to EOG.

Read the decision at: EOG Resources Canada Inc. v. Saskitoba.

Shippers complain: Does Enbridge have enough insurance?

On May 9, 2011, Enbridge Pipelines (NW) Inc. discovered an oil release near Willowlake Creek, NWT from its Norman Wells Pipeline.  Between 750 and 1,500 barrels (between 119,243 L and 238,485 L) of oil were released.  Enbridge charged repair and clean up costs arising from the spill to its shippers on the pipeline.  One of the shippers, ISH, contacted Enbridge to enquire why insurance coverage on the pipeline was not used to cover the spill costs.  Enbridge did not provide a response.

ISH has now brought a complaint before the National Energy Board (NEB) asking the NEB to compel Enbridge to explain why the spill costs were not paid by insurance and to determine whether Enbridge failed to comply with certain sections of the NEB Act.  In its books, Enbridge designated most of the spill costs as standard costs of operating the pipeline. 

ISH has noted that, at the time of the Norman Wells clean-up, Enbridge may have already exhausted its insurance coverage in dealing with the Line 6B rupture in Marshall, MI.  ISH says that it is "concerned that ENW's insurance coverage, under the comprehensive insurance coverage, had been exhausted at the time of the Pipeline leak, and that ISH, and the other shippers on the Pipeline, were accordingly denied the benefits of insurance coverage."  ISH raises questions about the cross-subsidization of pipelines and its effect on shippers: "exhaustion of insurance by ENW's affiliated entities should not entitle collection of Spill Costs from its shippers, while such Spill Costs would have otherwise been covered by insurance."

Read the complaint at: Letter from ISH to NEB re Enbridge Pipelines (NW) Inc. 2011 Willowlake Pipeline Spill Operating Costs Complaint.

TCPL files major decommissioning application with NEB

The NOVA Gas division of TransCanada Pipelines Limited (TCPL) has filed a major pipeline "decommissioning" application with the National Energy Board (NEB).  TCPL proposes to "decommission" in place the vast majority of a 266 km length of pipeline, capping it, filling it with an inert gas, and leaving it to corrode in the ground.  The application is at the following link: Decommissioning Application. 

Several years ago, the NEB introduced the concept of "decommissioning", which effectively allows a pipeline company to abandon its pipeline in place without having to make an application to abandon.  Where there is no application for abandonment, landowners have no access to participant funding to support their involvement in the approval process. 

Changes coming to the NEB Act in the Omnibus Budget Bill C-38

Here are a few of the changes coming to the NEB Act under Bill C-38, the omnibus "budget" bill:

• The Chair of the NEB can issue directives to the members of the NEB hearing any application "regarding the manner in which they are to do so";
• If the Chair is of the opinion that a time limit imposed on the hearing of an application is not going to be met, the Chair can change the composition of the panel or decide how to apply new Section 55.2 of the NEB Act (i.e. deciding to limit the ability to make representations to the Board):

"On an application for a certificate, the Board shall consider the representations of any person who, in the Board's opinion, is directly affected by the granting or refusing of the application, and it may consider the representations of any person who, in its opinion, has relevant information or expertise.  A decision of the Board as to whether it will consider the representations of any person is conclusive.";

•  All applications and proceedings before the Board are to be dealt with as expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit, but, in any case, within the time limit provided for in the Act;
• For Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity under Section 52 of the NEB Act, the Board must submit a report and recommendation on an application within 15 months of the date on which a complete application has been submitted;
• Once the report has been submitted, Cabinet may direct the Board to issue or refuse a certificate, and must provide reasons for the decision in its order;
• The Board must make an order on a Section 58 exemption application within 15 months of receipt of a complete application
• Added to Section 112 (the control zone and crossing section) is a new suite of direct penalties for anyone contravening Section 112(1) (the requirement for leave from the Board to work within 30 metres of a pipeline easement - the 30 metre control zone) or Section 112(2) (the requirement for leave from the pipeline company for permission to cross the pipeline with a vehicle or mobile equipment): on summary conviction, a fine of up to $100,000 and/or imprisonment up to 1 year; on conviction on indictment, a fine of up to $1,000,000 and/or imprisonment up to 5 years.

One can definitely question how the last change relates to "Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity", which is the "short title" for the Bill.  Pipeline landowners need to be aware that a failure to obtain the consent required under Sections 112(1) and 112(2) of the NEB Act (not just failure to comply with an order made by the NEB or an inspector resulting from non-compliance with those sections) will constitute a federal offence subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code.

"Enbridge not telling entire story about pipeline, hearing told": Toronto Star

John Spears of the Toronto Star published an article about the Line 9 Reversal Hearing before the National Energy Board in London that concluded yesterday.  Spears refers to the submissions made on behalf of environmental groups and the Ontario Pipeline Landowners Association (OPLA), which represents landowners along the length of the Enbridge crude oil pipeline corridor in Ontario. 

Read the article at: Line 9 Reversal Hearing.

NEB: Independence of the Regulator - The Canadian Story

In a speech to the World Forum on Energy Regulation, Gaetan Caron, Chair and CEO of the National Energy Board (NEB) had this to about the independence of the NEB from industry:

The easiest topic to cover in my presentation is that of independence from the industry we regulate. The Board and its staff must not only be free from bias, but also the perception of bias.  This aspect of independence is governed by an explicit array of conflict of interest requirements, the Codes of Conduct for NEB employees, and specific prohibitions for Board members and staff to invest in or hold shares of energy companies. We also have clear guidelines on meetings with external parties, requirements to prepare and make available meeting minutes, a requirement that decisions are based on materials on the public record, and other methods of preserving independence.

Another important way to promote independence and guard against perception of industry bias is

the recruitment process for Board members. [...]

Choosing people with the right background, experience, and attitudes in relation to the public interest and natural justice is one effective tool in creating and maintaining an independent regulatory tribunal. 

The same can be said about the recruitment of staff.

Mr. Caron's speech did not appear to address the historical flow of Board and staff members back and forth between the NEB and industry.

See the full presentation with speaking notes at: May 14, 2012.

NEB issues Hearing Order for Pipeline Abandonment Costs Estimates

The National Energy Board (NEB) has issued a Hearing Order in the LMCI Stream 3 proceeding dealing with pipeline abandonment cost estimates.  An oral hearing will be convened to consider the reasonableness of the costs estimates presented by each Group 1 company (including Enbridge, TransCanada, etc.)  The following timetable of events is included in the NEB's Order:

Although landowners and other interested parties will be able to participate as intervenors, no participant funding is being made available. 

Read the Hearing Order at: MH-001-2012.

Who owns abandoned pipelines?

A few years back, David Howell, Senior Right-of-Way Agent, International Right-of-Way Association, Houston, TX, wrote a frightening article about landowners and the ownership of abandoned pipelines.  Howell had received a call from a Texas landowner who was facing a $51,000 cost to remove 300 metres of abandoned oil pipeline from his property to allow for development.  The company has walked away from the line, but retained ownership and refused to allow Howell to hire his own contractor to remove the pipe at a cost of no more than $1,500.  Of course, the $1,500 quote was based on an assumption that the company had properly purged the line of contaminants, etc. 

Many landowners are worried about the day when they will become responsible for abandoned pipelines on their properties.  However, what happens when the pipeline company walks away (i.e. ceases operations and escapes any regulatory control), but retains ownership?

Read Howell's article at: Who owns abandoned pipelines?

Trans Mountain Pipeline LP ordered to pay $250,000 after oil spill

The Trans Mountain Pipeline is 1,050 kilometres in length and has a diameter of 610 millimetres, which is about 24 inches, for most of that length. The Trans Mountain Pipeline can transport approximately 300,000 barrels of oil per day and can transport different products in batches rather than being limited to transporting one product type at a time.  It has been in operation since 1953 and crosses the provincial boundary between Alberta and British Columbia.  Since it is an interprovincial pipeline, it is regulated pursuant to the federal National Energy Board Act and the National Energy Board Pipeline Crossing Regulations and is subject to the oversight of the NEB.

Trans Mountain has recently been ordered to pay $250,000 after the pipeline was damaged during excavation work, resulting in an oil spill.  A civil engineering company working for the City of Burnaby applied to Trans Mountain under Section 112 of the NEB Act for permission to excavate near the pipeline to complete works for a City storm sewer project.  A crossing agreement was signed and then the engineering firm retained a construction company to carry out the work.  During construction, no preconstruction meeting was scheduled or held between the construction company and Kinder Morgan, the pipeline company acting as agent for Trans Mountain. 

The Foreman for the construction company reviewed a services map in conjunction with the project plans and determined that the planned construction work would conflict with the location of the pipeline.  Kinder Morgan was advised of the potential conflict and requested to attend to locate and mark the pipeline in the area of the discrepancy.  An inspector attended and located the pipeline, the location being consistent with the newly provided service map and inconsistent with the project plans prepared by the engineering firm and approved by Kinder Morgan. 

Eventually, construction was being carried out on the site without the presence of an inspector from the pipeline company.  No complete location of the pipeline was requested and no preconstruction meeting was held.  Later, an excavator operator was widening the trench for the installation of an additional manhole when he pierced the pipeline.  Pursuant to this training, the excavator operator attempted to cover the puncture in the pipe with the bucket of his excavator in order to contain the escape of oil.  This led to a second puncture. 

In handing down its sentence, the Court noted:

There was no benefit which flowed to any of the defendants from the pollution here. The spill was, on the contrary, an accident which could and should have been avoided. Culpability for each of the defendants is at the low end of the spectrum. A combination of small errors by each party created the event. There were misunderstandings, there were erroneous assumptions, but there was not even what might be referred to as real negligence and there was certainly no deliberate wrongdoing. Care was taken, but not enough care.

The Court imposed fines of $1,000 on each of the three companies involved - the engineering firm, the construction company and Trans Mountain.  In addition, each company was ordered to pay $149,000 to the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation.  Trans Mountain was ordered to pay another $100,000 to the B.C. Common Ground Alliance for the purpose of "identifying parties engaged in construction or excavation, organizing and planning DigSafe BC! workshops, and raising awareness about damage prevention for those undertaking excavations near underground utilities."

Read the sentencing decision at: R. v. B. Cusano Contracting Inc. et al.