R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al., (1996) 89 O.A.C. 199 (CA)

• Judge: Galligan, Doherty and Laskin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: March 15, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1996), 89 O.A.C. 199 (CA)

R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines (1996), 89 O.A.C. 199 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Limited and J.P. Sheridan (appellants)

(C17483)

Indexed As: R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Galligan, Doherty and Laskin, JJ.A.

March 15, 1996.

Summary:

The Director of the Ministry of the Envi­ronment ordered a mining company and Sheridan (chief executive officer) to take steps to prevent the spread of PCBs at an abandoned mine site, pursuant to the Envi­ronmental Protection Act. The company and Sheridan neither appealed nor sought judicial review of the order. They failed to comply with it. The company and Sheridan were charged under the Act with four counts of failing to comply with the order. The trial judge, in convicting the company and Sheri­dan only on one count, allowed them to directly challenge the validity of the admin­istrative order. The Crown appealed the acquittals. The company and Sheridan appealed the conviction. Both appealed the fines imposed.

The Ontario Court of Justice, General Division, in a judgment reported 12 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 171, allowed the Crown's appeal in part, substituting convictions for three counts, and varied the fines. The court held that the validity of the orders could not be challenged. The company and Sheridan appealed the convictions on the three counts. They submitted that (1) the validity of the orders could be considered on the conviction appeal; (2) that they exercised due diligence in failing to comply with the order; and (3) if they could not attack the validity of the order or argue due diligence, then s. 146(1a) of the Act violated s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The validity of the administrative order, challenged solely on the ground that it was unreasonable, could not be collaterally challenged in enforcement proceedings. The company and Sheridan did not exercise due diligence. Section 146(1a) of the Act did not violate s. 7 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 686

Liberty - Principles of fundamental justice - Deprivation of - What constitutes - Section 146(1a) of the Environmental Protection Act made noncompliance with a Director's order under s. 17 of the Act an offence - A company denied an opportu­nity to collaterally attack the validity of the order claimed that it could be con­victed without doing anything wrong (i.e., s. 146(1a) was tantamount to an absolute liability offence and violated s. 7 of the Charter where its chief executive officer could be imprisoned for nonpayment of a fine imposed) - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 146(1a) did not violate the principles of fundamental justice (s. 7) - Absolute liability and imprisonment were not combined - Section 146(1a) was a strict liability offence - The defence of due diligence was available - The court stated that "persons who deliberately ... disobey administrative orders because they disagree with them are hardly 'morally innocent'" - See paragraphs 94 to 97.

Civil Rights - Topic 726

Liberty - Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of liberty - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 686 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Principles of fundamen­tal justice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 686 ].

Pollution Control - Topic 9127

Offences - Strict liability offences - Defence of due diligence - A company was charged under s. 146(1a) of the Envi­ronmental Protection Act with noncom­pliance with a Director's order under s. 17 respecting PCBs - The com­pany largely ignored the order - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 146(1a) was a strict liability offence to which the defence of due diligence applied - The court rejected the company's sub­mission that due dili­gence included noncompliance on the ground that the order was not cost effec­tive or that com­pliance would harm the environment more than noncompliance - The company was bound to accept the validity of the order and must show an attempt to comply - Noncompliance on the ground that the company believed the order was made without reasonable and probable grounds did not constitute due diligence - Such a stance, where the order was not appealed and judicial review was not sought, consti­tuted a collateral attack on the order under the guise of due dili­gence - See para­graphs 87 to 90.

Pollution Control - Topic 9310

Enforcement - Control or stop orders - [See Practice - Topic 6270 ].

Practice - Topic 6270

Judgments and orders - Administrative orders - Collateral attack - The Director issued an order under s. 17 of the Envi­ronmental Protection Act respecting PCBs - The company did not appeal the order or seek judicial review - The company chose to ignore the order, believing the Director lacked reasonable and probable grounds to make it - The company was charged under s. 146(1a) of the Act with noncompliance with the order and sought to challenge the validity (reasonableness) of the order in defending the charge - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the general rule against collateral attacks applied to administrative orders, even those that could not be filed as court orders - The rule was flexible, not absolute - Whether a collateral attack was permissible depended on the wording of the statute, the purpose of the legislation, the availability of an appeal, the kind of collateral attack and the penalty on con­viction for noncompliance with the order - Applying those factors, the court held that the company could not collaterally attack the administrative order - See paragraphs 29 to 86.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 32].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Campbell Chevrolet Ltd. (1984), 14 C.E.L.R. 25 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Canchem Inc. (1989), 4 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 237 (N.S. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd. (1993), 146 A.R. 211 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37].

Mac's Convenience Store Inc. v. Ontario; Suncor Inc. and Sunoco Inc. v. Ontario (1984), 5 O.A.C. 362; 48 O.R.(2d) 9 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 39].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Head, [1959] A.C. 83 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 42].

Plymouth City Council v. Quietlynn Ltd., [1987] 2 All E.R. 1040 (Q.B.D.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Reading Crown Court; Ex parte Hutchinson and Another, [1988] 1 Q.B. 384 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

Hinton Demolitions Pty. Ltd. v. Lower (No. 2), [1971] 1 S.A.S.R. 512, refd to. [para. 47].

Myers v. Bethlehem Ship Building Corp. (1938), 303 U.S. 41 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

McKart v. United States (1969), 395 U.S. 185 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Cana­dian Human Rights Commission (1991), 117 N.R. 191; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (At­torney General), [1992] 3 W.W.R. 481; 135 N.R. 321; 125 A.R. 241; 14 W.A.C. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 145, refd to. [para. 58].

Canada (Auditor General) v. Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Re­sources) et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49; 97 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 61].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Greenbaum (M.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 674; 149 N.R. 114; 61 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Sharma (D.) (1993), 149 N.R. 161; 61 O.A.C. 161; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 142, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. C.I.P. Inc. (1983), 13 C.E.L.R. 7 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Jones (1986), 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133; 28 C.C.C.(3d) 513, dist. [para. 73].

Bhadauria v. Seneca College, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181; 37 N.R. 455, refd to. [para. 74].

Syndicat national des employés de la com­mission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 81].

U.E.S., Local 298 (FTQ) v. Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l'Out­aouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Bibeault - see Syndicat national des em­ployés de la commission scolaire région­ale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 3 C.R.(3d) 30; 7 C.E.L.R. 53, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Algom Ltd. (1988), 29 O.A.C. 349; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 242 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Boise Cascade Canada Ltd. (1995), 82 O.A.C. 142; 24 O.R.(3d) 483 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Chapin (1979), 26 N.R. 289; 45 C.C.C.(2d) 333 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 96].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 4].

Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 141, sect. 17(1) [para. 9]; sect. 17(2) [para. 10]; sect. 122(1), sect. 123(1) [para. 13]; sect. 146(1a) [para. 16].

Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-22, sect. 19(1) [para. 56].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Craig, Administrative Law (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 448 to 450 [para. 46].

Davis and Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise (3rd Ed. 1994), vol. 2, p. 207 [para. 50].

Emery, The Vires Defence - "Ultra Vires" As a Defence to Criminal or Civil Pro­ceedings (1992), 51(2) Cam. L.J. 308, generally [para. 41].

Rubinstein, Jurisdiction and Illegality: A Study in Public Law (1965), p. 39 [para. 41].

Wade, Administrative Law (6th Ed. 1988), p. 331 [para. 41].

Counsel:

Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C., and Marie Henein, for the appellants;

Jerry Herlihy, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard on November 6, 1995, before Galligan, Doherty and Laskin, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Laskin, J.A., and released on March 15, 1996.