R. v. Placer Development Ltd., (1982) 38 A.R. 197 (NWTSC)

• Judge: de Weerdt, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Northwest Territories (Canada)
• Case Date: February 18, 1982
• Jurisdiction: Northwest Territories
• Citations: (1982), 38 A.R. 197 (NWTSC)

R. v. Placer Dev. Ltd. (1982), 38 A.R. 197 (NWTSC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Placer Development Limited

(SC 2392)

Indexed As: R. v. Placer Development Ltd.

Northwest Territories Supreme Court

de Weerdt, J.

February 18, 1982

Summary:

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the accused of diverting the flow of water within a water management area from February 10 to 19, 1980, contrary to s. 3(2) of the Northern Inland Waters Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. 28. The accused had been charged with 10 counts of the same offence, one for each day of the period from February 10 to 19, pursuant to s. 32 of the Act. The Northwest Territories Supreme Court allowed the appeal on counts 2 to 10 inclusive. The court dismissed the appeal on the first count, because nothing had been done, which would constitute the offence alleged in count 1, until February 11.

Waters - Topic 8063

Offences - Diversions - Defined - Northern Inland Waters Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. 28, s. 3(2) - The Crown appealed the acquittal of the accused of diverting the flow of water contrary to the Act - The accused built a dam on a river - The accused submitted that the dam did not divert the flow of water, because it did not change the destination of the water - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court allowed the appeal - The court held that the accused diverted the flow of water - The court considered the ordinary meaning of the word "divert" and gave the word a large and liberal interpretation - See paragraphs 23 and 24.

Waters - Topic 8070

Offences - Diversions - Exceptions - Emergencies - Northern Inland Waters Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. 28 - The Crown appealed the acquittal of the accused of diverting the flow of water contrary to the Act - The accused built a dam on a river, because the river washed out its road - The accused submitted that it did so under emergency conditions to prevent flooding under s. 4 of the Act - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court allowed the appeal - The court held that the diversion was permanent in nature, contrary to s. 4 of the Act, and that the accused intended to prevent river bank erosion and not flooding - See paragraph 79.

Cases Noticed:

Hill v. William Hill Ltd., [1949] A.C. 530 ref'd to. [para. 14].

Ditcher v. Denison (1857), 11 Moo. P.C. 324; 14 E.R. 718, ref'd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Hall (1822), 1 B. & C. 123; 107 E.R. 47 (K.B.D.), consd. [para. 23].

Hornsey L.B. v. Monarch Investment Building Society (1889), 24 Q.B.D. 1 (C.A.) consd. [para. 23].

R. v. Mojelski (1968), 65 W.W.R.(N.S.) 565 (Sask. C.A.), consd. [para. 23].

Pearson v. I.R.C., [1980] 2 All E.R. 479 (H.L.), consd. [para. 23].

Supplementary Benefits Commission v. Jull, [1980] 3 All E.R. 65 (H.L.), consd. [para. 23].

Grenfell v. I.R.C., [1876] 1 Ex. D. 242, consd. [para. 24].

McLean v. Crosson (1873), 33 U.C.Q.B.R. 448, consd. [para. 36].

Regier v. Hutchins (1956), 298 P. 2d 777, consd. [para. 38].

Caplin v. Gill (1977), 84 D.L.R.(3d) 765 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 40].

Bradford v. Pickles, [1895] A.C. 587 (H.L.), consd. [para. 40].

King v. Mackenzie (1963), 49 M.P.R. 57, consd. [para. 41].

R. v. Wulff (1970), 74 W.W.R.(N.S.) 549 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 613(4)(b)(ii) [para. 84]; sect. 730(2) [para. 77]; sect. 755(1) [para. 84].

Dominion Water Power Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. W-6 [para. 21].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 11 [para. 23]; sect. 27(2) [para. 77].

Northern Inland Waters Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. 28, sect. 3(2) [para. 2]; sect. 4 [para. 21]; sect. 26(9), sect. 39(2) [para. 5].

Northern Inland Waters Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 1234, Schedule II [para. 29].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Angell on Water Courses (6th Ed.), [para. 36].

Oxford English Dictionary [para. 15].

Counsel:

D.E.L. Beach, for the appellant;

D.H. Searle, Q.C., for the respondent.

This case was heard before de WEERDT, J., of the Northwest Territories Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on February 18, 1982.