R. v. Meadow Lake OSB Limited Partnership, 2015 SKPC 23

JudgeKalenith, P.C.J.
CourtProvincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
Case DateFebruary 23, 2015
JurisdictionSaskatchewan
Citations2015 SKPC 23;(2015), 468 Sask.R. 256 (PC)

R. v. Meadow Lake OSB (2015), 468 Sask.R. 256 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.035

Her Majesty the Queen v. Meadow Lake OSB Limited Partnership

(Information No. 24150974; 2015 SKPC 23)

Indexed As: R. v. Meadow Lake OSB Limited Partnership

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Kalenith, P.C.J.

February 23, 2015.

Summary:

Meadow Lake OSB Limited Partnership (Meadow Lake) was a shareholder to a Forest Management Agreement that outlined its rights and responsibilities regarding a licence covering provincial and Crown forests. Compliance and enforcement field officers found waste left at certain sites and no garbage cans or no garbage cans with lids at certain sites. Meadow Lake was charged with three violations of the Forest Resources Management Act and two of the Litter Control Act.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found Meadow Lake guilty of one count under the Forest Resources Management Act and one count under the Litter Control Act. Meadow Lake was not guilty of the remaining charges.

Partnership - Topic 6

General - Nature of limited partnership - Meadow Lake OSB Limited Partnership (Meadow Lake) was a shareholder to a Forest Management Agreement that outlined its rights and responsibilities regarding a licence covering provincial and Crown forests - Compliance and enforcement field officers found waste left at certain sites and no garbage cans or no garbage cans with lids at certain sites - Meadow Lake was charged with violations of the Forest Resources Management Act and the Litter Control Act - Meadow Lake asserted that a limited partnership was neither a legal entity with a legal existence that was separate from its partners nor a person with a separate legal existence at common law and, thus, it could not be convicted under the Acts - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court rejected the argument, setting out a number of reasons why Meadow Lake was a person properly charged under the Acts - See paragraphs 4 to 7.

Pollution Control - Topic 9127

Offences - Strict liability offences - Defence of due diligence - [See second Trials - Topic 1172 ].

Pollution Control - Topic 9128

Offences - Strict liability offences - Defence of mistake of fact - [See first Trials - Topic 1172 ].

Trials - Topic 265

Prosecution - General - Abuse of process - Meadow Lake OSB Limited Partnership (Meadow Lake) was a shareholder to a Forest Management Agreement that outlined its rights and responsibilities regarding a licence covering provincial and Crown forests - Compliance and enforcement field officers found waste left at certain sites and no garbage cans or no garbage cans with lids at certain sites - Meadow Lake was charged with violations of the Forest Resources Management Act and the Litter Control Act - Meadow Lake asserted that a negotiated side agreement authorized certain activity for a period of time and provided an implied undertaking not to prosecute or an express undertaking not to prosecute without following the prescribed enforcement process - Thus, the prosecution amounted to an abuse of process - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court rejected the argument - Given the lack of any clear language indicating that such an undertaking was given and nothing that led to the belief that it was inferred, the court found that no such undertaking was given - There was no abuse of process - See paragraphs 12 to 15.

Trials - Topic 1102

Summary convictions - Defences - Mistake of fact - [See first Trials - Topic 1172 ].

Trials - Topic 1172

Summary convictions - Strict liability offences - Defence of due diligence or error of fact - Meadow Lake OSB Limited Partnership (Meadow Lake) was a shareholder to a Forest Management Agreement that outlined its rights and responsibilities regarding a licence covering provincial and Crown forests - Compliance and enforcement field officers found waste left at certain sites and no garbage cans or no garbage cans with lids at certain sites - Meadow Lake was charged with violations of the Forest Resources Management Act and the Litter Control Act - Meadow Lake asserted that mistake of fact applied here because it honestly, but mistakenly, believed that it had 60 days to rectify the littering based on its interpretation of a side agreement that permitted 60 days to rectify shareholder defaults - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the defence of mistake of fact did not apply - The offences were for violations of the Act and not of the side agreement - See paragraphs 31 and 32.

Trials - Topic 1172

Summary convictions - Strict liability offences - Defence of due diligence or error of fact - Meadow Lake OSB Limited Partnership (Meadow Lake) was a shareholder to a Forest Management Agreement that outlined its rights and responsibilities regarding a licence covering provincial and Crown forests - Compliance and enforcement field officers found waste left at certain sites and no garbage cans or no garbage cans with lids at certain sites - Meadow Lake was charged with violations of the Forest Resources Management Act and the Litter Control Act - Meadow Lake asserted that it had taken all the reasonable steps that a reasonable person would take to comply with the relevant laws - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the defence of due diligence did apply to the offences related to the sites with no garbage cans or no garbage cans with lids - Meadow Lake had taken all reasonable steps to inform its contractors of their obligation to provide the containers - The fault was with the contractors, not Meadow Lake - However, at the sites where waste was found, Meadow Lake had not acted quickly enough to clean up and remove the material - The defence did not apply to those offences - See paragraphs 33 to 44.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. AFC Soccer (2004), 184 Man.R.(2d) 241; 318 W.A.C. 241; 2004 MBCA 73, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City) (1978), 21 N.R. 295; 1978 CanLII 12, refd to. [para. 19].

Kallooar v. R. (1964), 50 W.W.R.(N.S.) 602 (N.W.T.T.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Counsel:

Peter A. Hryhorchuk, Q.C., for the Crown;

T. John Agioritis, for the accused.

This case was heard at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, by Kalenith, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on February 23, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT