This is what can happen if you are not a fish farmer...
R. v. Greater Vancouver Regional District and Greater
Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District
BC Provincial Court (1981)
The accused were charged under the FA for deposit of a
deleterious substance after continuing release of raw sewage
from the Iona Island treatment plant into the Fraser River.
Charges were brought in a private prosecution by the Union
of BC (First Nations) Chiefs. The accused pleaded guilty.
Each accused was fined $5,000 and placed on probation.
Of the fine, 50% went to the Union of Chiefs. Part of the
probation order required the establishment of a committee to
recommend remedial measures. As a result, a $37 million deepsea
sewage outfall was constructed.
R. v. District of North Vancouver
BC Provincial Court (1982)
A pump in the District’s sewage lift station failed, causing
sewage to flow through an emergency overflow drain into
Hastings Creek. The District was charged with deposit of a
deleterious substance under the FA.
The District was convicted and fined $7,000. The trial
judge noted that it was not necessary to show that the
deposit caused a fish kill. “The question which must be
answered is whether fresh sewage can be deleterious to fish
when added to any water.” The sewage system, installed in
1965, was designed to do precisely what was then, and is
now, prohibited by the Fisheries Act: to deposit, in the case
of an emergency, a deleterious substance into Hastings
Creek, water frequented by fish.
R. v. Central Fraser Valley Regional District
BC Provincial Court (1987)
A vandal tampered with a valve on an above-ground
municipal sewage distribution box, left over from an old
sewage lagoon system. This caused raw sewage to spill into
Willband and Clayburn creeks. The District was charged
under the FA with deposit of a deleterious substance.
The District was convicted and fined $5,000. The judge
found the accused had clearly considered the possibility of
tampering at this valve and inspected it regularly. However,
no steps were taken to prevent the offence, such as proper
fencing, removing the ladder access, or a more secure locking
device on the valve itself. The District was not duly diligent in
preventing the offence.
R. v. Village of Lillooet
BC Provincial Court (1991)
The Village of Lillooet sewage system became blocked for
about a month. During that time, Village employees attempted
to remedy the problem without contacting any waste
management authorities. There was no overtime or urgency
on the part of the accused to fix the problem, while the
treatment system was bypassed and raw sewage was
introduced directly into the Fraser River.
The Village pleaded guilty under the FA to deposit of a
deleterious substance and was fined $10,000.
R. v. Commissioner of the Northwest Territories
NT Territorial Court (1993)
The west dyke on a municipal sewage lagoon failed, releasing
12 million gallons of untreated sewage into Koojesse Inlet at
Iqaluit over eight days. The Territory was charged under the
FA for deposit of a deleterious substance into waters
frequented by fish.
As noted by Judge de Weerdt, the Territorial
government fought the case vigorously “on every
conceivable issue which legal ingenuity could devise,” and
challenged s. 36(3) of the Fisheries Act as unconsitutionally
vague. The defence argued that the Act has to do with
fisheries, and not with pollution.
The court, however, found that s. 36(3) is neither
unconstitutionally vague nor contrary to s. 7 of the Charter
of Rights. Protecting the environment and preventing
pollution includes protection and preservation of the fishery.
Further, it was immaterial that not one dead fish was ever
reported as a result of the sewage spill. Waters around Iqaluit have long been a centre of Aboriginal fishing activity. The
accused was convicted, fined $49,000 and ordered to pay an
additional $40,000 to construct and operate a public aquarium
in Iqaluit.
NT Supreme Court (1994)
Both the Crown and the Territory appealed the fine; the
former arguing it was too low, and the latter that it was too
high. The appeal court noted that the dyke had failed five
times in the ten years before the offence charged. After a
previous failure, a diversion ditch was dug but not
maintained, and became incapable of containing a spill.
Construction of roads, aircraft facilities and drainage works
had changed the local topography and increased water runoff
into the lagoon. These facts were known to the accused, but
nothing was done to better protect the sewage lagoon.
The court stated that laws cannot be flouted by
governments and their officials with impunity. The fine was
not a mere intergovernment transfer of taxpayer dollars. In
this case, part of the penalty was for constructing and
operating an aquarium, and sewage treatment programs; and
all of the money came from the offender’s bank account
instead of federal revenues. Convictions were upheld, and
total penalties were increased from $89,000 to $200,000.
R. v. Town of Port McNeill
BC Provincial Court (1993)
Since its incorporation in 1966, the town of Port McNeill had
discharged untreated domestic sewage into Broughton Strait.
The Town was granted a permit, on the condition it
constructed sewage treatment works in a specified time. The
Town never completed any such works. After a series of
extensions, the permit was not renewed and the Town was
charged in 1989 under the WMA.
The defence made a motion to dismiss the charge because
of abuse of process. The defence argued that there were ongoing
negotiations between the parties regarding the sewage
problem, and laying the charge violated the community’s
sense of fair play.
The court denied the motion to dismiss. The court found
no evidence that both parties had been treating the expired
permit as valid. The Ministry had clearly stated its position six
months before the charge was laid, and the Town had made
no attempt to comply with the Ministry’s requirements.
R. v. Greater Vancouver Regional District
BC Provincial Court (1993)
A contractor was hired by the District to remove buildings in
a regional park. The contractor accidentally severed a main
sewage line with a back hoe. Several hundred thousand litres
of sewage entered the Serpentine River. The District pleaded
guilty to charges under the WMA of introducing waste into
the environment.
The District was fined $25,000. There was no evidence of a
fish kill or lasting environmental damage, and the incident was
a remote possibility. However, it was a foreseeable event. The contractor and the District did not properly investigate whether there was anything that could be damaged before
digging.
]
