R. v. Chetal Enterprises Ltd. et al., (2014) 454 Sask.R. 268 (PC)

• Judge: Harradence, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 09, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2014), 454 Sask.R. 268 (PC);2014 SKPC 171

R. v. Chetal Ent. Ltd. (2014), 454 Sask.R. 268 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.035

Her Majesty the Queen v. Chetal Enterprises Limited operating as One Hour Cleanitizing and Peter Evaschesen

(Information No. 24167768; 2014 SKPC 171)

Indexed As: R. v. Chetal Enterprises Ltd. et al.

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Harradence, P.C.J.

October 9, 2014.

Summary:

The accused were charged with not properly storing tetrachloroethylene, a chemical used in the dry cleaning process, as it did not have a secondary containment system, contrary to s. 5(f)(i) of the Tetrachloroethylene (Use in Dry Cleaning and Reporting Requirements) Regulations, thereby committing an offence contrary to s. 272(1)(h) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused not guilty.

Pollution Control - Topic 24

General principles - Mens rea or intention - Strict liability offences - [See Pollution Control - Topic 9127 ].

Pollution Control - Topic 9122

Offences - Strict liability offences - Improper storage or disposal of hazardous materials - [See Pollution Control - Topic 9127 ].

Pollution Control - Topic 9127

Offences - Strict liability offences - Defence of due diligence - Environment Canada Enforcement Officers conducted a random inspection at the retail outlet of a dry cleaning business operated by the accused (Evaschesen and Chetal Enterprises Ltd.) - The inspection alleged that tetrachloroethylene ("PERC") was being used and stored at that business in compliance with the environmental regulations, with one exception - In a separate building there was a 45 gallon drum that contained PERC - That drum had been delivered to the business within five days prior to the inspection - Evaschesen had been away when the drum was delivered and the day of the inspection was his first day back to work - The Enforcement Officers concluded that the PERC was not stored properly as it did not have a secondary containment system - As a result, the accused were charged that they committed an offence contrary to s. 5(f)(i) of the Tetrachloroethylene (Use in Dry Cleaning and Reporting Requirements) Regulations - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused not guilty - Evaschesen had a plan in place to move the PERC into smaller containers and then place them in secondary containment - The larger barrel of PERC was delivered and Evaschesen was in the process of moving the PERC to secondary containment - He took reasonable steps to comply with the Regulations and he was duly diligent - The court also questioned whether the Crown had proven the actus reus of the offence - Given the lack of a definition of secondary containment in the Regulations, together with Evaschesen's evidence that the 45 gallon transport container was lined to prevent the dangers of spills, the court had a reasonable doubt as to whether the PERC was not in secondary containment in the 45 gallon drum.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Precision Plastics Ltd. et al. (2003), 337 A.R. 210; 2003 ABPC 129, consd. [para. 7].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Westfair Foods Ltd., [2006] 8 W.W.R. 377; 277 Sask.R. 288; 2006 SKQB 87, refd to. [para. 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Environmental Protection Act Regulations (Can.), Tetrachloroethylene (Use in Dry Cleaning and Reporting Requirements) Regulations, SOR/2003-79, sect. 3, sect. 4, sect. 5, sect. 6, sect. 7 [para. 6].

Tetrachloroethylene (Use in Dry Cleaning and Reporting Requirements) Regulations - see Canadian Environmental Protection Act Regulations (Can.).

Counsel:

Carol Carlson, for the Crown;

Grant Carson, for the accused.

This matter was heard at Melfort, Saskatchewan, before Harradence, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on October 9, 2014.