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

BC Rancher conviction for shooting neighbour's dog set aside; new trial ordered

In June, 2011, a BC rancher shot and killed her neighbour's dog.  She was later charged under Section 445(1) of the Criminal Code.  At trial, the rancher claimed the dog had attacked her cattle and relied upon Section 11.1(2) of BC's Livestock Act (a person may kill a dog if the dog is running at large and attacking or viciously pursuing livestock) and Section 39 of the Criminal Code (protection of personal property, this section has since been rolled into section 35) as legal justifications for her actions.  The Provincial Court judge rejected those defences and convicted her.  The rancher appealed the conviction to the BC Supreme Court.

At trial, counsel agreed that the burden rested with the Crown to prove that the defence under Section 11.1(2) of the Livestock Act (the other defence was not pursued) did not apply.  The trial judge identified the significant issue to be whether the dog that the rancher killed was "attacking or viciously pursuing livestock", and found that there was "no merit to the argument" that this was the case. 

However, the appeal court found that the trial judge had misapprehended the evidence at trial.  He had failed to consider a written statement of the rancher that had been tendered as evidence that included evidence that the dog had been "attacking or viciously pursuing" the cattle - there was evidence of biting and attacking.  Instead, the trial judge found that there was no evidence on this point, which in the view of the appeal court constituted a misapprehension of evidence.

The appeal court also found that the trial judge had erred in his application of the law.  On appeal, the rancher raised three defences: 1) the Livestock Act defence; 2) common law justification of defence of property; and, 3) defence of colour of right.  Although the second two defences were not raised at trial, the Crown did not object to those defences being raised on appeal.  The appeal court found that the matter must be sent back for a new trial in which the Court would consider evidence related to all three defences. 

With respect to Section 11.1(2) of the Livestock Act in particular, the appeal court gave the following interpretation of the defence: "Rather, a fair and liberal construction, consistent with the common law, the overall object of the [Act], and the intention of the legislature is required.  To my mind, s. 11.1(2) of the [Act] should [be] construed in the same manner as the common law as permitting any person to kill a dog when at the time of the act of killing, the dog: a. is running at large; and, b. is actually attacking or viciously pursuing livestock, or, if left running at large, would subject the livestock to a real and imminent danger that the attack or vicious pursuit would be renewed."  The act of killing a dog would be prohibited once the need for protection of the livestock has ended.

Read the decision at: R. v. Robinson.

Ontario Court of Appeal orders new trial in careless use of rifle case with possible significance to farmers

The Ontario Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial in a careless use of firearms case that may have implications for farmers.  A resident of a rural area near St. Thomas, Ontario led a wandering dog across the road to another property and then fired a gun to scare the dog off.  Witnesses heard the shot and notified police; a charge was laid for careless use of a firearm.  At trial, the Court convicted the resident on the basis that the location of the shot, beside the road and in close proximity to neighbouring inhabited properties, was inherently dangerous, particularly given that the purpose of the shot was to scare the dog.  The conviction was upheld by the summary conviction appeal judge.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the conviction, ruling that the trial judge and the summary conviction appeal judge both erred in concluding that firing a shot in the rural environment, whatever the manner in which the shot was fired, necessarily amounted to a careless use of the firearm.  Firing a shot in that manner did not necessarily amount to a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person (which is the test for a finding of careless use).  The Court noted that the generality of the findings of the trial judge could have a broader significance relating to permissible farm practices, and granted leave to appeal on this basis (before allowing the appeal outright).

The conviction could not be sustained because there was no finding by the Court as to the manner in which the rifle in question was used or as to the trajectory of the projectile.  The Court suggested that there may have been any number of ways in which the shot could have been fired that might have posed no risk to others.  This was a shot fired in a rural area, not a shot fired in a shopping mall where the shot would automatically be inherently dangerous.  A new trial was necessary.

Read the decision at: R. v. Batty.

Michael Schmidt loses unpasteurized milk appeal

The Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal by Michael Schmidt of convictions on thirteen counts under the Milk Act and the Health Protection and Promotion Act (HPPA) related to the production, sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk and cheese.  Schmidt had tried to comply with the HPPA by creating a cow-share program where members purchased shares in milk cows (so that there was no real sale of unpasteurized milk produced by the cows).  The cow-share agreements were oral in nature, and there was no evidence that the name of the cow in which a member had a share was ever communicated to the member.  There was also no evidence that the agreements formally transferred ownership in the cow from Schmidt to the member.

At trial, Schmidt was acquitted of the charges on the basis that the private cow-share scheme was not caught by the legislation.  On appeal by the Crown to the Ontario Court of Justice, most of the acquittals were reversed, giving rise to Schmidt's appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.  The Court of Appeal dismissed Schmidt's appeal.  With respect to the legislation banning the sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk, the Court wrote: "provided that the legislature has acted within the limits imposed by the constitution, the legislature’s decision to ban the sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk to protect and promote public health in Ontario is one that must be respected by this court."

The Court rejected Schmidt's contention that the cow-share scheme did not fall within the definitions of sale and distribution.  In the Court's view, "the cow-share arrangement is nothing more than a marketing and distribution scheme that is offered to the public at large by the appellant."  The Court also rejected arguments that the ban on the sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk in this case violated the Charter rights of the cow-share members.  The Court ruled that the ban did not constitute an infringement of the members' security of the person and did not infringe on the right of liberty.  As the Court stated, "lifestyle choices as to food or substances to be consumed do not attract Charter protection". 

Read the decision at: R. v. Schmidt.

Court of Appeal upholds conviction for dangerous tractor driving

The appellant in this case before the Ontario Court of Appeal was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle (in this case, a tractor) under the Criminal Code.  The evidence at trial included the following:

• the appellant was driving a tractor at 30-35 kilometers per hour along a rutted gravel and dirt road, causing the tractor to bounce along the road;

• the appellant was driving in a deliberate manner, and appeared determined to return to his property, heedless of those who were in his path or were attempting to stop him;

• without slowing, the appellant drove the tractor through a narrow opening between two trailers, one of which was moving, barely missing both;

• the appellant drove toward a police constable, ignored his motions and shouts to stop, and drove within a few of meters of his vehicle before making an evasive manoeuvre to avoid it;

• he continued along the road at top speed toward another police constable, who feared for his own safety, to the extent that he nearly drew his own service revolver, before the appellant abruptly veered away at the last minute to avoid striking him;

• he drove up onto the narrow berm, adjacent to and above a third police constable in his cruiser, putting the officer in fear for his own safety, before the tractor did in fact roll off the berm; and

• the evidence of several witnesses, including the officers, who testified that the appellant’s driving caused them to fear for their own safety.

 

The Court of Appeal granted the appellant leave to appeal the decision from a summary conviction appeal judge because the appellant had been self-represented for that appeal (and may have misunderstood the procedure).  The appellant argued to the Court of Appeal that the trial judge was wrong to find that the appellant had the required mental element or intent (mens rea) for the offence charged.  He argued that the determination of the mens rea element required a determination of whether the manner of driving was a "marked departure" from the standard of care.  The appellant submitted that a lay person, lacking specialized knowledge of the operation of a tractor, is not able to appreciate the risks of operating a tractor in the circumstances or the measures a reasonable person would take to avoid them.  This, he said, would call for expert evidence.

 

The Court of Appeal disagreed.  It found that the risks of the appellant's driving and the means of avoiding those risks were "plain and obvious" and did not call for expert evidence: "While there may be cases in which expert evidence is required to establish the standard of care in the operation of a tractor and whether the accused's driving was a marked departure from that standard, this case is not one of them."  The appeal was dismissed.

 

Read the decision at: R. v. Clare.

Manitoba Court of Appeal upholds convictions for maintaining illegal trenches

Employees from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in Manitoba had investigated the unauthorized draining of wetlands on a farm in 1998.  The landowner obtained licenses from DNR for four specific wetlands, but the licence for Wetland #1 prohibited any drainage.  In 2000, a man-made trench draining Wetland #1 was discovered.  A charge was laid by the DNR, but subsequently stayed.

 

By 2008, it was discovered that both Wetlands #1 and #2 had been completely drained with two man-made trenches, neither of which had been authorized by DNR.  Wetland #1 appeared to have been cultivated and worked through with farm machinery.

 

The landowner was charged under the Water Rights Act with two counts of establishing or maintaining illegal trenches without a licence.  The trial judge convicted the landowner and fined him $1,500 on each count.  Although he determined that there was no evidence that the landowner had established, constructed or actively maintained the trenches, the trial judge decided that the fact that the landowner knew about the existence of the trenches and did nothing to eliminate them was evidence of passive maintenance sufficient to support the convictions.

 

On summary conviction appeal, the appeal judge determined that passive acts of maintenance were not sufficient to support convictions, but nevertheless upheld the convictions because: 1) for the first trench, there was evidence that a crop was planted and harvested there, meaning that the trench was actively maintained; and, 2) for the second trench, because it had not previously existed, the only reasonable inference was that it had been established or constructed by the landowner.

At the further appeal before the Court of Appeal, the Crown conceded that the summary conviction appeal judge had erred by upholding the convictions on the basis of facts not supported by the trial record.  There was simply no evidence that the appellant landowner had constructed or established the second trench in the time period cited in the charge or that he had planted and harvested in the first trench.  The question on the appeal therefore turned on the effect of "passive maintenance".

The appellant landowner argued that the prohibited act or "actus reus" of the offence required proof of active maintenance of the trenches; the Crown argued that keeping the trenches in existence without active maintenance would be sufficient.  The Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown's position and ruled that "maintenance" included keeping the trenches in existence without active maintenance.  The Crown did not need to prove that the landowner knew the trenches were on his land or that he actively maintained them.

Read the decision at: R. v. Dickson (W.A.)

Chicken farmer fined over improper disposal of dead animals

From the Ministry of the Environment:

Thorold Resident Fined $7,000 For Improper Farming Practices

St. Catharines – A Thorold resident was fined $7,000 for failing to comply with a ministry order and for failing to properly dispose of dead farm animals.

“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.

Tom Sarantakos operates a chicken farm located in Thorold. The chickens are raised for about eight to nine weeks and are then taken for slaughter.

The ministry received a number of complaints of manure runoff, foul odours, excessive insects and escaping chickens. Following a number of inspections by ministry staff, Mr. Sarantakos was issued a ministry order requiring him to take various measures to manage the manure on the farm. The final order required Mr. Sarantakos to provide proof of manure removal. Mr. Sarantakos failed to comply with the order.

Mr. Sarantakos lives at a second farm location. An inspection of this farming operation revealed numerous dead farm animals, namely chickens that appeared to have died well in excess of the 48 hour duration permitted, following the death of an animal for proper disposal.

Mr. Sarantakos was fined a total of $7,000 plus victim fine surcharges of $1,750 and given 90 days to pay the fine.

Wheel off wood chipper case sent back for new trial

Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) officers investigated a truck stopped along a highway.  Attached to the truck was a wood chipping machine that was missing its right wheel.  The hub of the wheel was located at the end of a scrape mark in the pavement, but the wheel was not found.  The wheel hub had the eight wheel-fastening bolts shorn from where the wheel should have been attached.

The truck belonged to a tree services company.  The MTO charged the company and the person that was present with the truck with offences under the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) - the company was charged with a "wheel-off" offence and the individual was charged with driving an unsafe vehicle.

The Justice of the Peace at trial acquitted both defendants, finding that the wood chipper was not a vehicle (an essential ingredient of each charge).  A wood chipper was being towed, but was not a "thing used for transporting people or goods on land".  The Crown appealed the decision, arguing that the JP erred in not taking a purposive or purpose-based approach to the interpretation of the charging provisions. 

On appeal, a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice agreed that the purposive approach is to be applied and results in a finding that the wood chipper was, in fact, a vehicle for the purposes of the HTA.  However, the judge also noted that there were other defences that could have possibly been raised by the defendants at trial, but that were not necessary for the trial judge to deal with (given the ruling on a wood chipper not being a vehicle).  Both charges were sent back for a new trial.

Read the decision at: Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) v. Tsapoitis.

OHSA conviction of farm operation upheld on appeal

An employee of a chick hatchery operation was injured when she fell climbing down from a storage trailer used to house paper liners used in shipping crates.  The employee broke her leg.  The hatchery was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing "to take the reasonable precaution of ensuring that adequate access and/or egress was provided for a transport storage trailer".  The hatchery was convicted at trial and appealed the conviction.

Justice Nadel of the Ontario Court of Justice upheld the conviction, finding that, "while the set of steps may once have worked well and may once have been adequate to their purpose that was no longer the case after the trailer had been moved. ... A gap of two feet between rungs of a ladder or a rise of two feet between the treads of a set of steps is, in my view, self-evidently unsafe.  Likewise, a gap of two feet between the top of a set of steps and the platform those steps are intended to give access to is equally self-evidently unsafe and inadequate to the purpose."

The defendant had taken the position on the appeal that, "there is no offence known to the law of Ontario that requires an employer in a farming operation to take the reasonable precaution of ensuring that adequate access and/or egress is provided for a storage facility where the employee's task requires her to work at a height that is less than three metres" (as paraphrased by Justice Nadel).  This was rejected by the Court.

Read the decision at: Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. Stratford Chick Hatchery Ltd.

Court of Appeal rules "restoration" of farm land required aggregates licence

An excavating company was charged under the Aggregates Resources Act for operating a pit without a licence.  The company was carrying out a contract with a farmer, removing topsoil, levelling sand knolls, selling the sand, and then restoring the topsoil to restore it for farming.  Neither the company nor the farmer had obtained a licence to operate a pit or quarry under the Act.

At trial, the Justice of the Peace acquitted the company on the basis that the land, which was not a pit, was being rehabilitated for farming.  The Crown appealed that decision to the Ontario Court of Justice, which found that it was not the purpose of the Act to regulate the type of activity where "a farmer was simply trying to improve his farmland to grow better crops".

The Court of Appeal disagreed:

It is clear that what the respondent was doing was excavating a pit within the grammatical and ordinary sense of the definition in the ARA. The respondent argues that the ARAshould not be interpreted to include pits that are being excavated and that will be rehabilitated in order to improve farmland and not for the purpose of commercial aggregate production. The problem with that interpretation is thats. 1(3) provides a specific ministerial exemption where the primary purpose of the excavation is not for the production of aggregate. There would be no need for such an exemption if the licencing requirement did not apply, prima facie, to the particular excavation. Moreover, the intention to rehabilitate the excavation in the future does not take the operation out of the definition of a “pit”. That definition covers land “that has not been rehabilitated” and s. 48 requires all licencees and permittees to rehabilitate the site in accordance with the Act and regulations.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and, based on an agreed statement of facts in the case, entered a conviction and sent the case back to the Justice of the Peace for sentencing.

Read the decision at: R. v. Ontario Corp. 311578 (Dedrick Bros. Excavating Ltd.).

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.

Michael Schmidt seeking leave to appeal conviction and sentence

Durham-area farmer Michael Schmidt is asking for leave to appeal his conviction on 15 charges related to the sale of raw milk along with the sentence handed down following the conviction.  Schmidt was sentenced to a fine of $9,150 and one year of probation.  The appeal would be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Justice Tetley's reasons for sentencing Schmidt are available on the website of the Canadian Constitution Foundation.  The Crown had asked for $1,000 per count for each of ten convictions under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-7, and $200 for two other counts under the same Act.  The Crown sought a fine of $5,000 for the offence under the Milk Act of operating a milk plant without a licence during the fourteen week period of the investigation by the Ministry of Natural Resources. 

In handing down the sentence, Justice Tetley declined to rule that Schmidt's was a test case in which it would be appropriate to moderate the sentence.  Tetley did agree, however, that a relevant factor in sentencing was the fact that Schmidt believed he was complying with the applicable legislation.  Justice Tetley added that the extended period of time where regulatory enforcement procedures were not instituted may reasonably be concluded to have contributed to a mistaken belief on the part of Schmidt that he was in compliance with the law. 

Read the decision at: R. v. Schmidt.

Ministry of the Environment News Release: $4,000 fine for selling pesticides without licence

Justin Vanderheide Fined $4,000 For Selling Pesticides Without A Licence

CAYUGA – On July 8, 2011, Justin VanDerheide was convicted on three violations under the Pesticides Act for offering the sale of a pesticide and selling a pesticide without a vendor’s licence.  The Court heard that Mr. VanDerheide resides in Dunnville, Haldimand County.  In November 2010, the ministry found an advertisement in a trade publication newspaper, dated offering Weed-Master 41 and Wiseup glyph sate for sale. Similar advertisements were also found on an advertising website.  The advertisements in the newspaper and on the website were later determined to belong to Mr. VanDerheide. Weed-Master 41 is a pesticide that requires a licence to sell.  A search of ministry records determined that Mr. VanDerheide did not possess a vendor’s licence.

Mr. VanDerheide was charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  He was fined 4,000 plus a victim fine surcharges and was given 15 days to pay the fine.

Reasons for Decision in Michael Schmidt raw milk case released

The Reasons for Decision of Justice P.D. Tetley in the Michael Schmidt raw milk case are now available at: R. v. Schmidt.  Schmidt had been acquitted of all charges against him by a Justice of the Peace, but that decision has now been overturned and he has been convicted on 15 of 19 charges against him under the Provincial Offences Act (see my recent post).  The POA charges arose from alleged violations of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-7 (17 counts) and the Milk Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-12 (2 counts).  Counsel for the parties have been asked to confer with the trial coordinator to set a date for sentencing of Mr. Schmidt.

Ontario Court reverses Michael Schmidt acquittals on raw milk charges

Farmer Michael Schmidt has been convicted on 15 of 19 charges related to the sale of raw milk after the Ontario Court of Justice overturned a previous decision by a Justice of the Peace.  Schmidt had been acquitted of all charges (see my earlier post from January, 2010), but on appeal Justice Peter Tetley rejected Schmidt's argument that selling raw milk to customers who are aware of any health risks was his legal right. 

Schmidt remains defiant, and has said that he will appeal the decision: "There's no stopping.  Nothing will stop me."  Schmidt says that he is prepared to go to prison over his right to provide raw milk. 

Schmidt has also been served with contempt of court charges stemmning from his alleged involvement in Our Cows Inc., a Chilliwack, B.C. operation that provincial authorities there have tried to shut down. 

Failure to comply with Nutrient Management Act results in fines

Cor Pannekoek Construction Ltd. And Cornelis Martinus Pannekoek Fined $43,500 For Liquid Manure Spill.

KITCHNER – On March 31, 2011, Cor Pannekoek Construction Ltd. pleaded guilty to one violation under the Ontario Water Resources Act and Cornelis Martinus Pannekoek pleaded guilty to one violation under the Nutrient Management Act for the improper construction of a liquid manure tank and subsequent spill from the tank which impacted a creek.

The Court heard that Mr. Pannekoek is the director of the company.  The company was hired to help with an expansion of Hogendoorn Dairy in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.  This expansion included the construction of a new liquid manure tank and transfer lines between an existing liquid manure tank and a new liquid manure collection system.  The liquid nutrient transfer system was installed without ensuring a flexible watertight gasket or membrane between the wall of the storage tank to serve as an anti-seepage collar as required by Nutrient Management Act.  On February 22, 2009, during the first transfer and filling of the new liquid manure tank, approximately one million litres of liquid manure leaked from a connection at the new tank, ultimately entering an unnamed tributary of Bamberg Creek resulting in a significant fish kill.

Following the laying of charges on June 24, 2010 by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's Investigations and Enforcement Branch, the company was convicted and fined $40,000 and Mr. Pannekoek was convicted and fined $3,500.  The fines totaled $43,500 plus victim fine surcharges (an additional 25%).  The company was given 12 months to pay the fines.

Failure to notify MOE of pesticide spill costs $100,000 fine

LONDON – On March 9, 2011, Scotland Agromart Ltd. was fined $75,000 for having control of a pollutant that was spilled and failing to notify the ministry of the spill. On a related charge, Summerville Custom Spraying Limited was fined $25,000 on October 27, 2010.

The court heard that Scotland Agromart Ltd. is a farm supply retail business located in Scotland, Ontario. On April 25, 2009 the company was delivering a pesticide to Summerville Custom Spraying Limited located in Otterville, Ontario. While unloading the truck, the driver noticed the tote carrying the pesticide had broken off and the pesticide had spilled onto the ground. Staff from both companies worked together to contain and clean the spill area. Representatives from both companies failed to inform the ministry of the spill.

The companies were charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  Scotland Agromart Ltd. was fined $75,000 plus a victim fine surcharge for having control of a pollutant that was spilled and failed to forthwith notify the ministry of the spill.  It was given one year to pay the fine.  On October 27, 2010, Summerville Custom Spraying Limited was fined $25,000 plus a victim fine surcharge for the same offense and was given one year to pay the fine from the conviction date.

Company fined $3,500 for replacing existing waste-oil burner

498503 Ontario Inc. (W. Paiement & Sons) Fined $3,500 for No Certificate of Approval

Haileybury – On December 2, 2010, 498503 Ontario Inc. operating as W. Paiement and Sons pleaded guilty to replacing equipment, namely a waste oil derived fuel burning heater, without first obtaining a Certificate of Approval.  The Court heard that the company services vehicles and heavy equipment.  On April 20, 2009 during an inspection by the Ministry of the Environment, it was noted that the waste derived oil burning furnace on-site was not the same as the one approved in the existing Certificate of Approval and that a larger unit had been installed.

The company was charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  The company was convicted and fined $3,500 plus a victim fine surcharge of 25% and was given six months to pay the fine.

Belwood Poultry Limited pleads guilty to spreading sewage sludge without MOE approval

Belwood Poultry Limited - Fined $20,000 for Illegal Sludge Waste Activities

WINDSOR – On November 17, 2010, Belwood Poultry Limited pleaded guilty to one violation under the Environmental Protection Act for depositing waste on land that was not an approved waste disposal site.

The Court heard that the company is located in Amherstburg. The company did not have ministry approval to operate equipment for the transportation or the disposal of sewage waste to any of their properties. On February 21, 2008 a Provincial Officer conducted an inspection of the company site and found that waste was being transported to a company property to be spread on fields without ministry approval. The Provincial Officer instructed the company to cease the activity.

The company was charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  The company was fined $20,000 plus a victim fine surcharge ($5,000) and was given one year to pay the fine.

Fines levied against Kingston area lawn care companies for herbicide use

November 8, 2010

TYMACK INCORPORATED O/A NUTRI-LAWN KINGSTON AND ROBERT BAXBY FINED $10,486 FOR USING BANNED PESTICIDES

KINGSTON & BELLEVILLE – On October 14, 2010, Tymack Incorporated operating as Nutri-Lawn Kingston and Robert Baxby were each convicted of four violations under the Pesticides Act for using a prohibited Class 9 Pesticide for cosmetic use and failing to post signs as per regulations.

The Court heard that Mr. Baxby is the manager and sole director of Tymack Incorporated operating as Nutri-Lawn Kingston, who has been providing lawn care services in Belleville and Kingston. On April 24, 2009, Mr. Baxby met with ministry staff in Kingston to discuss the new cosmetic pesticide ban, and the requirements of the ban were explained to him. Mr. Baxby was strongly encouraged to comply with the new ban. On August 13, 2009, the ministry received a complaint that company trucks and employees were applying chemicals to control weeds at a site in Kingston, leaving a strong odour. Ministry staff attended the site and confirmed that the company had sprayed that morning. There were also no signs posted. On August 19, 2009, an examination of the turf areas at the site revealed vegetation with abnormal growth patterns, characteristic of exposure to Class 9 Pesticides.

On October 8, 2009, the ministry received several complaints related company employees using a mixture in the spray tank at a site in Belleville. Again, no signs were posted and the results of samples taken from the tank confirmed high concentrations in the Class 9 category and therefore, a banned substance.

The company was charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  The company was fined at total of $10,486 on two charges, plus a victim fine surcharge and given 12 months to pay the fines.

October 15, 2010

KEVIN CROSS FINED $12,000 FOR USING BANNED PESTICIDES

KINGSTON – On September 30, 2010, Kevin Cross was fined $12,000 for using, causing, or permitting the use in, on, or over land of a pesticide, contrary to amendments made under the Pesticides Act.

The Court heard that Mr. Cross owns a lawn care and pest control company in Kingston. From May to August 2009, the ministry had received reports that the company had been applying banned herbicides to three residential properties.

Mr. Cross was charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  Mr. Cross was fined $12,000 plus a victim fine surcharge and was given one year to pay the fine.