R. v. Chisum Log Homes & Lumber Ltd. et al., 2011 SKQB 155

• Judge: Konkin, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 18, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2011 SKQB 155;(2011), 373 Sask.R. 178 (QB)

R. v. Chisum Log Homes (2011), 373 Sask.R. 178 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.018

Chisum Log Homes & Lumber Ltd. and Garry Varga (appellants) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(2009 Q.B.A. No. 10; 2011 SKQB 155)

Indexed As: R. v. Chisum Log Homes & Lumber Ltd. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Prince Albert

Konkin, J.

April 18, 2011.

Summary:

Chisum Log Homes and Lumber Ltd. and Varga, its President and sole Director, were charged with operating a processing facility without a licence, contrary to s. 18.1(1) of the Forest Resources Management Act (Sask.).

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, in a decision reported at 333 Sask.R. 66, found the accused guilty. They appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal.

Forests and Forest Products - Topic 5205

Offences - General - Operating a processing facility without a licence - Chisum Log Homes and Lumber Ltd. and Varga, its President and sole Director, were charged with operating a processing facility without a licence, between August 7 and September 8, 2007, contrary to s. 18.1(1) of the Forest Resources Management Act (Sask.) - Chisum assembled log home packages which were sold to customers world-wide - Chisum bought wood from area operators to be used in its packages - One of these operators was L & M Wood Products - L & M, through its contractor, P & E Logging, harvested wood and sold it to pulp mills, saw mills and other customers such as Chisum - P & E and L & M took steps to identify and sort to ensure that the logs provided to Chisum were satisfactory for their purpose - P & E and L & M had both a Forest Management Agreement and a Forest Product Processing Facility Licence - In August to September 2007, L & M delivered logs to Chisum - Chisum took additional steps to prepare the logs for inclusion in the log home packages which it sold - Chisum did not have a Forest Product Processing Facility Licence - The trial judge held that Chisum required such a license as it was involved in the "manufacture" of a forest product for the log home industry - It found the accused guilty - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench overturned the decision - The trial judge clearly defined the ambiguity of the Act, the fact that both L&M through P&E and Chisum were caught by the definition but did not go on to determine that because of the serious penalties contained in the Act it had to be narrowly interpreted - This was an error in law - The most favourable interpretation of the statute would mean that the first party caught by the definition of manufacturer would be the "any" party under the definition - In this case, it would be L&M through P&E who cut the timber, sized it, and delimbed it for specific markets including Chisum - The accused did not require a licence for their processing facility and therefore were not in breach of the Act.

Statutes - Topic 8406

Penal statutes - General principles - Ambiguity resolved in favour of accused - [See Forests and Forest Products - Topic 5205 ].

Cases Noticed:

Saulnier (Bankrupt), Re, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 166; 381 N.R. 1; 271 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 867 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 6].

Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada - see Saulnier (Bankrupt), Re.

Marcotte v. Canada (Deputy Attorney General), [1976] 1 S.C.R. 108; 3 N.R. 613, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. McLaughlin, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 331; 32 N.R. 350; 23 A.R. 530, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Million (G.) (1997), 151 Sask.R. 237 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Apesland (K.) (2006), 281 Sask.R. 131; 2006 SKQB 171, refd to. [para. 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Forest Resources Management Act, S.S. 1996, c. F-19.1, sect. 18.1(1) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Lawrence J. Zatlyn, Q.C., for the appellants;

Inez J. Cardinal, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by Konkin, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, who delivered the following judgment on April 18, 2011.