R. v. Churchbridge 211 (Rural Municipality) et al., (2005) 273 Sask.R. 29 (QB)

• Judge: Pritchard, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: December 15, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2005), 273 Sask.R. 29 (QB);2005 SKQB 524

R. v. Churchbridge 211 (2005), 273 Sask.R. 29 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.024

Rural Municipality of Churchbridge 211, Leo Fuhr, Tom Werle, Darcy Kentel and Douglas Reetz (appellants) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(2001 QB No. 446; 2005 SKQB 524)

Indexed As: R. v. Churchbridge 211 (Rural Municipality) et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Yorkton

Pritchard, J.

December 15, 2005.

Summary:

A Rural Municipality (RM), its Reeve and a councillor appealed their convictions under s. 18.1(1)(a) of the Environmental Management and Protection Act. The RM, the Reeve and a ratepayer also appealed their convictions under s. 7(1) of the Wildlife Habitat Protection Act. All of the charges arose out of the same set of facts, ditching done in the RM to alleviate flooding problems in the area. The Crown alleged that the ditching was done without the proper permits or other necessary authorizations. The appellants also appealed their sentences.

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

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Void for vagueness doctrine - Section 18.1(1)(a) of the Environmental Management and Protection Act (Sask.) provided that "No person shall, without a valid and subsisting permit authorizing the activity: (a) alter or cause to be altered the configuration of the bed, bank or boundary of any river, stream, lake, creek, marsh or other watercourse or body of water" - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 18.1(1)(a) was neither vague nor overly broad - See paragraphs 12 to 23.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Overbreadth principle - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3107 ].

Fish and Game - Topic 1700

Offences - General - Intent or mens rea - Offences of strict liability - Section 7(1) of the Wildlife Habitat Protection Act provided that "No person shall alter wildlife habitat lands unless the alteration is permitted in the regulations or authorized by the minister" - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the offence under s. 7(1) was a strict liability offence - See paragraphs 31 to 38.

Municipal Law - Topic 1486

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Respecting water supply, drains and sewers - A Rural Municipality (RM), its Reeve and a councillor appealed their convictions under s. 18.1(1)(a) of the Environmental Management and Protection Act - The charges arose out of ditching done in the RM to alleviate flooding problems in the area - The Crown alleged that the ditching was done without the proper permits or other necessary authorizations - The appellants submitted that s. 18.1 did not apply to an RM and that an RM's power to deal with drainage was absolute by virtue s. 204 of the Rural Municipality Act (Sask.) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the submission - Section 18.1 was enacted after s. 204 of the Rural Municipality Act - Upon passage of s. 18.1, RMs, along with all others, became subject to the new legislation - See paragraphs 4 to 10.

Statutes - Topic 1607

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - General - Policy of legislation - A trial judge stated that "After an act is passed, and the intent of the legislation is made clear, what is the government required to do if they wish to take a different view of the application of the act which does not involve a change in wording. ... [A]s long as the change in application was sanctioned by the Minister in charge of the department, and notice was given to affected parties, no other legislative action would be necessary." - The trial judge suggested four ways in which notice of a change in policy could be communicated - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the trial judge had crafted a reasonable response that gave effect to the government's change in policy - See paragraphs 24 to 29.

Statutes - Topic 1608

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - General - Administrative policy and interpretation - [See Statutes - Topic 1607 ].

Waters - Topic 7504

Regulation - Flood control and drainage control - Scope of statutory powers - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1486 ].

Waters - Topic 8364

Offences - Sentence - Particular offences - Diversion - A Rural Municipality (RM), its Reeve and a councillor were convicted under s. 18.1(1)(a) of the Environmental Management and Protection Act (EMPA) (altering watercourse or body of water) - The RM, the Reeve and a ratepayer were also convicted under s. 7(1) of the Wildlife Habitat Protection Act (WHPA) (altering wildlife habitat) - All of the charges arose out of the same set of facts, ditching done in the RM to alleviate flooding problems in the area - The trial judge imposed fines of $15,000, $1,000 and $1,000 against the RM, its Reeve and the councillor, respectively, for the offences under s. 18(1) of the WHPA - The trial judge imposed finds of $5,000, $1,000 and $1,000 against the RM, its Reeve and the ratepayer, respectively, for the offences under s. 7(1) of the EMPA - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench affirmed the sentences - See paragraphs 49 to 51.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 348, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Biller (V.K.) et al. (1999), 177 Sask.R. 161; 199 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), folld. [para. 18].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Borstmayer (G.A.) et al. (1996), 145 Sask.R. 228 (Q.B.), refd to. [par.a 32].

R. v. Barrows (R.) (2000), 190 Sask.R. 315; 2000 SKQB 27 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Rempel (S.J.) (2001), 204 Sask.R. 318 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Arlo Investments Ltd. (2003), 230 Sask.R. 282; 2003 SKPC 42 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Pikowicz (D.C.) (2003), 237 Sask.R. 191; 2003 SKPC 120 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Kurtzman (1991), 50 O.A.C. 20; 4 O.R.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Chapin, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 121; 26 N.R. 289; 45 C.C.C.(2d) 333; 7 C.R.(3d) 225; 8 C.E.L.R. 151; 95 D.L.R.(3d) 13, refd to. [para. 44].

Statutes Noticed:

Environmental Management and Protection Act, S.S. 1983-84, c. E-10.2, sect. 18.1 [para. 3].

Rural Municipality Act, S.S. 1989, c. R-26.1, sect. 204, sect. 205, sect. 242(1)(d), sect. 242(1)(j) [para. 4].

Wildlife Habitat Protection Act, S.S. 1983-84, c. W-13.2, sect. 7 [para. 3].

Counsel:

David K. Rusnak, for the appellants;

Barrie W. Stricker and Alan Jacobson, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by Pritchard, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Yorkton, who delivered the following decision on December 15, 2005.