MOE Court Bulletin: Brantford Biosolids Management Company fined $105,000 for Ontario Water Resources Act Violations

	NEWS
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Brantford Biosolids Management Company fined $105,000 for Ontario Water Resources Act Violations

April 2, 2015 9:00 A.M.

Simcoe - Biosolids management company Wessuc Inc. (Wessuc) was fined $105,000 for discharging sewage biosolids into a watercourse that may impair the quality of the water, contrary to the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA).

Wessuc is located in Brantford and operates throughout southern Ontario. The company is primarily involved with the land application of municipal biosolids.

On October 11, 2011, a Non-Agricultural Source Materials (NASM) Plan was approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF), for the land application of sewage biosolids to a Simcoe farm property on Concession 12. On April 27, 2012, the MOECC received notification from Wessuc that the sewage biosolid application would occur at the site, in accordance with the NASM Plan, between April 28 and May 5, 2012.

On April 30, 2012 and on May 2, 2012, ministry staff conducted sewage biosolid field inspections. During the May 2, 2012 inspection, Ministry staff observed a discharge of a dark-coloured liquid from the field's drainage tile, which entered a stream heading south through a road culvert, and flowed downstream onto a property south of the roadway. An assessment of effluent samples determined that the application of liquid biosolids resulted in discharge of biosolids to an unnamed tributary of Black Creek which impaired the quality of water in the creek.

Wessuc responded to the incident and cleaned up the spilled material at the Simcoe farm property. A Provincial Officer's Order was issued by the ministry to Wessuc to prevent the reoccurance of a similar event during the application of sewage biosolids on tile drained fields in the future.

The company was fined $105,000 plus a victim fine surcharge of $26,250 and was given one year to pay the fine.

Members of the media: Kate Jordan Communications Branch (416) 314-6666 Contact information for the general public: 1-800-565-4923

Available Online Disponible en Français

Better Farming: Pig Farmer acquitted in methane-fueled barn fire

Read Better Farming's story about the recent acquittal of a Huron County hog farmer on Occupational Health and Safety Act charges connected to a 2012 flash fire that injured the farmer and his employee.  The Court determined that the fire resulted from the ignition of a build-up of methane that had resulted from a barn design flaw.

Dairy farm fined after renovating barn without renewing expired nutrient management strategy

From the Ministry of the Environment:

Dunnville Company Fined $5,000 for Violation of the Nutrient Management Strategy

Cayuga - A Dunnville company was fined $5,000 for constructing a building or structure to house farm animals or store nutrients without a nutrient management strategy having been prepared, contrary to the Nutrient Management Act.

"Environmental protection legislation protects communities and the environment. Breaking these rules can result in serious penalties and is an offence the ministry takes very seriously," said Environment Minister Jim Bradley.

Huigen Bros. Farms Ltd. operates a dairy farm in Dunnville in the County of Haldimand. Ministry staff notified the company that their original nutrient management strategy had expired and would need to be renewed. An inspection of the site revealed an existing barn was renovated to house dairy cattle without an approved nutrient management strategy in place.

The company was fined $5,000 plus a victim fine surcharge of $1,250 and given 60 days to pay the fine.

Company fined for manure discharge into municipal drain

From the Ministry of the Environment:

Shedden Company Fined $25,000 for Manure Discharge

St. Thomas - A Shedden company was fined $25,000 for discharging pig manure into the Kerstan Municipal Drain causing impairment to the quality of water.

"Polluters should be aware that the ministry's Investigations and Enforcement Branch will vigorously pursue charges when our environmental laws are broken," Environment Minister Jim Bradley.

G.H. Pennings Farms Inc. owns and operates a pig farm located in Southwold Township. The Ministry of Natural Resources received a call from a local resident regarding manure impacting a creek. The tip was relayed to the Ministry of the Environment and ministry inspectors attended the site. During the inspection, staff traced the source of the manure back to a holding lagoon located on the farm. The lab results of the water samples taken at the site showed impairment to water quality.

The company was fined $25,000 plus a victim fine surcharge of $6,250 and was given six months to pay the fine.

Farmer chasing ATV trespassers acquitted of dangerous driving

From the Judgment of Justice R. Green of the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan:

A farmer was charged with driving in a manner dangerous to the public on Church Road in the Rural Municipality of Fertile Belt, contrary to s. 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  The farmer is now 54 years of age and works for a neighbour. He farmed his own land in the past, but now leases it. On October 3, 2010, in the latter part of the afternoon, he was helping the neighbour fix his combine. He heard some All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) being operated in the distance, on a field he owned. These ATVs were being driven by three young males who were at the time they came to the farmer's attention driving around in mud on his field, which was to the south of Church Road.

The farmer took the neighbours 4x4 truck and drove, in 2-wheel drive on Church Road and then south into his field where the ATVs were.  At that point, the ATVs scattered.  The farmer followed one of the ATVs over Church Road and back north into another of his fields, in which a crop of canola had just been swathed.

A police constable arrived on the scene at 4:36 p.m., and found the ATV wedged under the front driver’s side bumper of the truck.  The farmer was seated in his vehicle. After attending to the young male ATV driver, and viewing the scene, the officer arrested the farmer at 5:08 p.m. for dangerous driving.

The Crown submitted at trial that the farmer chased after the young male on Church Road and rammed his ATV.   The farmer claimed that, as he pulled up beside the young male on Church Road, the young male accelerated his ATV and swerved into the truck and turned in front of it.  He said, as this was happening, he slammed on his brakes and skidded in a straight direction for a number of feet.

Ultimately, the Judge stated, the issue was not whether he is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the collision on Church Road happened as the farmer described, but rather whether it is possible that it did.   Considering: (1) his finding that it is possible the farmer was travelling as slowly as 35 to 40 kilometres per hour on Church Road when he collided with the ATV; (2) the lack of any expert evidence on accident reconstruction of what happened between the two drivers on Church Road; and (3) the reality that the young male was an inexperienced ATV driver who admitted he may have swerved before the truck reached him, the judge concluded that it is possible the collision happened as the farmer described, with the young male swerving into the driver’s side of the truck, the farmer slamming on the brakes and the young male accelerating and turning into the path of the truck. 

With respect to the degree of care exercised by the farmer, the Judge ruled that he was not satisfied that the degree of care exercised by the farmer in driving on Church Road was a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in these circumstances.  Whatever the farmer's liability might be civilly for the collision, the Judge was nevertheless not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that his driving was a marked departure from the standard a reasonable person would have observed in these circumstances.

On this basis, the farmer was acquitted of the dangerous driving charge.

Read the decision at: R v Tranberg.

Farm land exterminator fined $20,000 over pesticide use

MOE Press Release:

WALKERTON – On March 14, 2012, Kenneth Schiestel pleaded guilty to one violation under the Pesticides Act for the improper use of a pesticide causing harm or discomfort to a person.  The Court heard that Mr. Schiestel is a licensed exterminator with a retail company that specializes in pesticide applications to farm lands throughout the Grey and Bruce Counties. In 2010, the ministry received a phone call to report that Mr. Schiestel had commenced spraying pesticide on a field while another person was standing nearby. The spray plume of the pesticide came in contact with the nearby individual who developed a skin rash shortly thereafter. The ministry attended the site and collected samples.

Mr. Schiestel was charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  Kenneth Schiestel was fined $20,000 plus the victim fine surcharge, and was given six months to pay the fine.

$16,000 Fine for Keeping Cattle and Manure in Hay Storage Structure

Ontario Ministry of the Environment Press Release:

Thames Sales Yard Ltd And Thomas Vanrabaeys Fined $16,000 For Manure Management Violations

LONDON - On November 17, 2011, Thames Sales Yard Ltd. was convicted of two violations under the Nutrient Management Act for keeping cattle and manure in a structure constructed for hay storage and failing to comply with a Provincial Officer’s Order.

The Court heard that the company raises and sells beef cattle at a facility located in Thamesville.  Mr. Vanrabaeys is the controlling authority of the company. In 2009, the company was issued a building permit by the Municipality of Chatham-Kent for hay storage. A public complaint of cattle being housed in the new structure initiated an inspection of the company’s facilities by the ministry. A Provincial Officer’s Order was issued by the ministry to the company and Mr. Vanrabaeys regarding run-off management at two locations and the disposition of a well at a third location. The order was issued to ensure that qualified persons address the issues of run-off management from manure and food storage facilities and the repair of a well to protect the environment and the quality of the surface and ground water. The company failed to comply by the required dates, and the required reports were not submitted to the ministry.

The company and Mr. Vanrabaeys were charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  The company was fined a total of $16,000 plus victim fine surcharges. It was given 45 days to pay the fines.

Van Boekel Hog Farms Fined $345,000 For Manure Spills

WOODSTOCK – On January 12, 2012, Eric and Yvonne Van Boekel, Van Boekel Hog Farms Inc. and Van Boekel Holdings Inc. were fined a total of $345,000 for pig manure spills that resulted in adverse effects to residents and impairment of water quality. Mr. Van Boekel also received 30 days of jail time.

The Court heard that the companies own two hog farms in Oxford County and that the ministry responded to complaints of pig manure spills on both farms. The ministry observed significant spills and noted that the spills had discharged into the Thames River and Sweets Creek. The ministry also determined that the flow manure application system that was being used to spread manure on fields was not being operated in accordance with the Nutrient Management Act.

The companies and the Van Boekels were charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  The companies and the Van Boekels were fined a total of $345,000 plus victim fine surcharges (25% surcharge). Mr. Van Boekel also received 30 days jail time concurrent to be served on weekends plus two years probation.

Read the Better Farming story on the case at: Oxford farmer slapped with huge fine, jail time.

Ministry of Environment News Release: Fines for gasoline spill

901659 Ontario Inc. O/A Dicola Petroleum, James Orr, Kathryn Gibson And Daniel Wilson Fined A Total Of $38,000 For Gasoline Spill

KINGSTON / BROCKVILLE – In June 2011, Daniel Wilson pleaded guilty to one violation under the Environmental Protection Act for failing to comply with a Provincial Officer Order by failing to submit a report in relation to the Kingston charge. In a related matter, in March 2011, 901659 Ontario Inc. o/a Dicola Petroleum, James Orr and Kathryn Gibson pleaded guilty to one violation each under the Environmental Protection Act for having control of a pollutant that spilled and failing to forthwith notify the ministry.

The Court heard that Dicola Petroleum is located in the Town of Perth and is a provider of petroleum products. Ms. Gibson is the president of the company and Mr. Orr is a truck driver for the company. Mr. Wilson is a co-owner of Franklin’s Marina located near Elgin. In May 2005, a gasoline spill occurred at the Marina while fuel was being delivered by the company, as a result of an overfill.  Gasoline discharged onto the ground and ran into a drainage ditch.  The spill was not reported to the ministry until 2008 by an engineering firm who was conducting a site assessment at the marina. Mr. Wilson disclosed that the spill had occurred on the property back in 2005. As a result, a Provincial Officer Order was issued, requiring a report to be prepared by a qualified consultant to describe the contamination and the proposed work needed to fully remediate it.

Following the laying of charges by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch, the company was fined a total of $35,000. Mr. Wilson was fined $3,000 and Mr. Orr and Ms. Gibson were given suspended sentences.  The fines totaled $38,000 plus victim fine surcharges and they were given six months to pay.

Saskatchewan farmer acquitted of Stray Animals Act charges

A Saskatchewan farmer has been acquitted by the Provincial Court of three charges under the Stray Animals Act for "allowing his cattle to run unlawfully at large".  The Court found in the end that the farmer had made out the defence of due diligence.

The Court accepted the evidence of a neighbour that on August 31, 2010, she was in her house, when suddenly five or six bulls came into her yard, from all directions, and a couple of them started fighting.  Being afraid, she called the police, and a complaint ensued.  She said that either she or the police phoned the farmer to come and get the bulls.  The neighbour also stated that the cattle got into an organic alfalfa field, which her son was farming for her.  She made a complaint about the August 31, 2010 incident, as well as two subsequent incidents of the same sort.

In his defence, the farmer presented evidence of his general practices, including the maintenance of fencing.  He argued that he had exercised due diligence by checking his fences twice a week, and repairing breaks whenever they were located.  The Court found that the farmer's fencing was good and substantial, well-built and well-maintained.  In the end, the Court agreed that the farmer had exercised due diligence and was not guilty of the strict liability offences under the Act:

The test ... is whether or not Mr. Potoreyko has satisfied me, on a balance of probabilities, that he took all reasonable steps to avoid the doing of the prohibited act.  I am satisfied that he has met that test.  He is not required to guarantee that his cattle will not run at large.  I find that he took reasonable steps, in both patrolling his fence line, and in repairing the fence line when required, to prevent his cattle from running at large.

Read the decision at: R v Potoreyko.

Old farm "widow maker" tire and wheel assembly subject of Alberta Court decision

An Alberta Court acquitted a tire shop on charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) related to an accident involving one of its workers.  The accident occurred while the worker was inflating a tire mounted on a split-rim wheel assembly known as a "widow maker".  The tire technician suffered multiple facial fractures and a closed head injury as a result of an apparent "blow off".  The Court noted that split-rim assemblies are uncommon, but an exception is the use of the older style rims on farm trucks where the changeover to new rims can be cost-prohibitive.

The technician's employer was charged with failing to protect the worker in this case.  However, the Court found that the tire shop did have the proper safety mechanisms in place.  The technician simply did not follow the prescribed procedures, including the use of a buddy system and a tire restraint system.

Read the decision at: R. v. Fountain Tire (Olds) Ltd.

Enbridge denied leave to appeal in Bloor Street Explosion case

Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. is going back to trial on Occupational Health and Safety Act charges related to the Bloor Street natural gas explosion in 2003 that killed seven people.  The Ontario Court of Appeal has denied Enbridge's application for leave to appeal an earlier decision by the Superior Court which ordered a new trial in the case.  Justice Watt summarizes the facts:

The Preliminaries

[17] Warren asked Enbridge to identify and mark its underground natural gas pipelines in the area involved in the reconstruction before Warren began excavation. Enbridge contracted with PUL to provide the necessary information for Warren. PUL assigned one of its employees to locate and mark Enbridge’s pipelines in the area affected by the reconstruction.

[18] The PUL employee assigned the task of locating and marking Enbridge’s pipelines in the area affected by the reconstruction neither identified nor marked a three-quarter inch pipeline into the commercial plaza at 3885-3891 Bloor Street West.

The Accident

[19] Warren’s backhoe operator inadvertently struck Enbridge’s unmarked pipeline into the plaza. The displacement dislodged the pipe from its fitting attached to the outside wall of the plaza. An unregulated flow of natural gas escaped into the basement of the plaza.

[20] About six to nine minutes after the pipe had become dislodged, an unknown source of ignition caused the gas to explode. The blast levelled the plaza. The force of the explosion and the ensuing fire damaged or destroyed several structures nearby. Seven people were killed, several more injured.

Read the full decision at: Ontario (Labour) v. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc.

Ontario livestock trucker fined for obstructing inspector attempting to euthanize cow

A Justice of the Peace in Cayuga, Ontario has convicted Frank DeBoer of one count of obstructing a veterinary inspector under the Livestock Community Sales Act.  The court found that DeBoer obstructed a veterinary inspector in the course of her duties under the LCSA at the Hagersville Livestock Auction. The inspector was prevented from euthanizing a lame cow that was not medically fit to be transported without undue suffering. The offence occurred on or about August 31, 2009.  Justice of the Peace Dan MacDonald sentenced DeBoer to a fine of $800 plus a victim fine surcharge of $125.

The Better Farming website has a follow-up story on this court case which raises some questions about whether or not the animal required euthanization at all.  Apparently the animal was returned to its owner, had its hoof trimmed, and was sold ten days later at auction without incident.  Read the Better Farming story at: trucker-obstructed-livestock-inspector-court-rules.

Review Tribunal decision highlights inflexibility in CFIA tag requirements

In a January, 2010 decision just posted on the internet, Dr. Donald Buckingham of the Canadian Agricultural Review Tribunal has once again reiterated that due diligence on the part of farmers is not enough to save them from paying for violations of cattle tagging regulations.  In this case, Doug Morningstar was found to have violated subsection 177(1) of the Health of Animals Act because two of the cattle he transported from his farm to an abattoir in 2008 did not have an approved identification tag. 

As Dr. Buckingham notes, keeping tags on the cattle at all times is no easy task:

Practical difficulties arise in attempting to have 100% of Canadian cattle tagged with approved tags. Some animals, requiring identification pursuant to Part XV of the Health of Animals Regulations, may never be tagged, through neglect or opposition to the present regulatory scheme. Most animals, however, will be tagged, but, even among these, some will lose their tags somewhere between the birthing pen and the slaughter house floor. To minimize “"slippage"” and to maximize the number of animals that are tagged with approved tags for the full duration of the animal's life, the Health of Animals Regulations require several actors in the production chain to tag animals which are either not yet tagged or which have lost their tags. If actors inside or beyond the farm gate do not tag as required, they face liability when tags are missing. Transporters of cattle are among those identified under the Health of Animals Regulations with such responsibilities.

However, having tags on the cattle at all times when they are being moved from location to location is the rule, and there is virtually no exception to the rule:

The Tribunal has no reason to doubt Mr. Morningstar's assertion made at the hearing that he is a conscientious producer who knows where his cattle originate and where they go to, or his assertion that he does his uttermost to ensure that cattle leaving his farm bear approved tags. However, in light of this analysis of the evidence, the Tribunal must conclude that the respondent has established, on a balance of probabilities, that the violation was committed. Therefore, the Tribunal orders the applicant to pay the penalty in the amount of $500 within 30 days after the day on which this decision is served.

Read the decision at: Doug Morningstar v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Farmer acquitted in another "self-propelled implement of husbandry" case

Justice of the Peace W. Rojek at Guelph, Ontario has acquitted an Ontario farmer, John Luymes, of several counts under the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) related to his use of a modified dump truck for farming purposes.  Luymes was charged after the following exchange with a Ministry of Transportation (MTO) officer:

On October 31st, 2008 the Ministry of Transport Officer Andrew Brown observed a vehicle travelling normally on Wellington Road 12 approaching Wellington Road 7 in the County of Wellington. The vehicle displayed a triangular slow moving motor vehicle sign at its rear driver’s side. The vehicle had three axles, a cab located behind the engine compartment and a dump box with a tailgate on it. The large tires mounted on the vehicle are commonly known as flotation tires. There were no licence plates attached to the vehicle. Officer Brown stopped the vehicle and spoke to the driver. The driver telephoned the vehicle’s owner, who is the defendant, John Luymes, and Mr. John Luymes then attended at the location where the vehicle was stopped. The defendant, John Luymes, told Officer Brown that he was the owner of the vehicle and described to Officer Brown the changes he made to the vehicle. The defendant, John Luymes, told Officer Brown that because of the changes of the characteristics and changes, he believed that the vehicle was a self-propelled implement of husbandry. Officer Brown examined the vehicle and told the defendant that the vehicle was a commercial motor vehicle. The defendant was then served with the summonses for the offences before the court.

Several different charges were laid.  For most of the charges, the salient issue was whether or not the vehicle was a "self-propelled implement of husbandry" as described in the HTA.  Luymes testified about the changes he made to the vehicle:

The defendant testified that they made the following changes to the vehicle in question: designed and manufactured a silage box, Exhibit Numbers 21 and 22, and how the vehicles are used. The photographs filed as Exhibits 23 and 24 show that the trucks are working together with the combines receiving harvested forage. Mr. Luymes explained that the tires were changed so the vehicle would not “sink” in the fields ground. The defendant told the court that when the harvested forage is blown onto these vehicles they transport the load to the farm’s bunker silo and the product is rear-discharged into that bunker silo and packed in firmly and the feed is preserved for the cattle as shown on the photo filed as Exhibit Number 26. That was the reason for designing and manufacturing specific boxes with the different type of gate which would allow the rear-discharge directly into these bunker silos. And this is why the boxes are called silage boxes. The vehicles needed also to be able to move alongside a forage harvester safely. They needed also to travel from the field to the farm relatively quickly. They needed to be operated safely on the highway day or night time.

Mr. Luymes advised the court that the vehicles he described are better equipped and definitely safer on the highway than most farm trailers, farm tractors and dump trailers. Mr. Luymes testified that if there was a need to haul grain to a commercial elevator on a highway he is using licensed trucks, farm-plated with the proper insurance policy attached to each vehicle. The vehicles used to collect forage are marked with slow vehicle signs as required for the self-propelled implement of husbandry. These vehicles do not travel at high rate of speed, are equipped with tires of limited speed and that they trying to operate within speed range of the tires. Mr. Luymes explained that on the day in question it was his son who operated the vehicle on its way to the farmstead to do the forage harvesting.

J.P. Rojek agreed with Luymes that, following the modifications to the vehicle originally purchased, it became a "self-propelled implement of husbandry":

It was then redesigned in the manner which can be summarized as follows: The box was designed and manufactured for accepting harvested forage from a combine or forage harvester and to be able to discharge such forage into the bunker silo. The rear two axles were redesigned from the original either highway wheels to four wheels fitted with flotation tires. The said tires had speed limits depending on load and air pressure from 10 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour (16 kilometres per hour to 48 kilometres per hour).

I am finding that the changes made to the tires and axles had met the criteria of objective change to that vehicle in the sense that it would be impossible to use that vehicle for its previous purpose which was hauling the loads on the highway. As I understand, the dump trucks (which apparently that vehicle was before) can travel with their load at regular highway speeds. This vehicle, as I said before, due to its tires limitations would not be able to do so. The mere fact that it was able to travel at approximately 80 kilometres per hour when empty would still be within “retaining some of its other capacities part of the test.” That change, in my understanding, is an objective one, does not depend on the end user. That vehicle was objectively changed from the highway dump truck to the forage harvesting vehicle. The mere fact that any kind of bulk goods could be still transported by it still fits in that objective change category. One could put anything in it but still could not travel on a highway as a regular dump truck would.

On this basis, J.P. Rojek acquitted Luymes of the charges for which the vehicle being a "self-propelled implement of husbandry" would be a defence.  However, one charge stuck:

With respect to charge number one, the vehicle was a motor vehicle when it was purchased by the defendant. The defendant did not apply for a permit on becoming an owner. This fact was not disputed by the defendant and found to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Until the changes had been made to transforming it into the self-propelled implement of husbandry, the defendant was dealing with a motor vehicle and under section 11(2) of the Highway Traffic Act had the obligation to apply for the permit. Mr. Luymes did not do that. I am satisfied therefore that the Crown has proven it’s case with respect to count number one beyond reasonable doubt and in that case there is finding of guilt and conviction registered.

Read the decision at: R. v. Luymes.

Sentencing Principles for Corporations in Environmental Spill Cases

From the judgment of Gorman, P.C.J. in R. v. Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited, 2010 CanLII 33018 (NL P.C.):

THE PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED

The principles to be applied have been considered in many cases (see for instance, R. v. United Keno Hill Mines Ltd. (1980), 1 Y.R. 299 (T.C.) and R. v. Domtar, [1998] O.J. No. 6408 (C.J.)). I would summarize them as follows:

(1) The Nature of the Harm Inflicted: Serious environmental damage will be considered as a significant aggravating factor. However, the Court must also consider the potential damage which might have occurred as it does not have to wait for environmental degradation to occur before imposing a sentence designed to prevent it from occurring;

(2) The Size of the Corporation: This is a factor which is designed to ensure that any financial penalty imposed is a meaningful one, but a disproportionate fine cannot be imposed solely based upon the size of the offender;

(3) The Degree of Culpability of the Corporation: Under this heading the Court must consider the nature of the offence which occurred and why it occurred. Purposely committing an environmental offence will normally be seen as being more serious than the commission of one through negligence or a lack of care. However, this distinction must not be taken too far. For instance, the accidental spilling of a deleterious substance in to water frequented by fish will have the same degrading impact upon the environment as will doing so purposefully. In addition, these are regulatory offences which demand that reasonable care be taken with potentially dangerous substances. These are offences involving a high degree of moral culpability no matter how they are committed;

(4) Attempts to Alleviate Harm: The Court must consider whether the corporation immediately reported the offence having occurred and what steps they took to; for instance, contain a spill of a deleterious substance;

(5) Was a Safety Plan in Place: The Court must consider whether the corporation was ready to respond to; for instance, the spill of a deleterious substance by having a plan in place or whether there was a lack of means to limit the spill once it was discovered;

(6) Any Previous Convictions: The Court must consider whether the corporation has any previous convictions, particularly for related offences; and

(7) The Plea: A plea of guilty can have the same mitigating impact when entered by a corporation as when entered by an individual.


Read the decision at: R. v. Corner Brook Pulp and Paper.

Energy Pipeline News - Wisconsin county drops charges against landowner in Enbridge case

Noel Griese of Energy Pipeline News reports:

SUPERIOR, Wis. - A northwestern Wisconsin man who was arrested for trespassing on his own property no longer faces charges.


During a pretrial hearing in Douglas County on May 24, 27-year-old Jeremy Engelking learned prosecutors will not pursue a disorderly conduct charge against him. A trespassing charge was dropped earlier.

Engelking wound up in jail after confronting an Enbridge work crew building a pipeline across his property in 2009. He told the workers they had no right to be on his property because he hadn't been compensated by the pipeline builder, Enbridge Energy Partners, for an easement. The Enbridge crew called in the local police who arrested and charged Engelking.

Engelking is reportedly considering a civil lawsuit now that the criminal charges against him have been dropped.