R. v. Potacan Mining Co., (1996) 183 N.B.R.(2d) 54 (PC)

• Judge: Cain, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: November 29, 1996
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1996), 183 N.B.R.(2d) 54 (PC)

R. v. Potacan Mining Co. (1996), 183 N.B.R.(2d) 54 (PC);

    183 R.N.-B.(2e) 54; 465 A.P.R. 54

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Her Majesty The Queen on the Information of R.W. Mather, an inspector designated under the Clean Water Act of New Brunswick (informant) v. Potacan Mining Company

Indexed As: R. v. Potacan Mining Co.

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Cain, P.C.J.

November 29, 1996.

Summary:

Potacan Mining Co. (PMC) operated a potash mine. A pipeline ruptured and brine escaped into a nearby river which resulted in a fish kill. PMC was charged under the Clean Water Act with (1) unlawfully releas­ing a contaminant into water thereby endan­gering the health of animal life (i.e., fish) (s. 12(1)(b)) and (2) unlawfully releasing a contaminant thereby affecting the natural constitution of water (s. 12(1)(a)). PMC pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, PMC pleaded guilty to the first offence. The Crown withdrew the second count.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court imposed a $3,000 fine and a two year period of probation.

Pollution Control - Topic 9185

Offences - Sentencing - Probation - Potacan operated a potash mine - A pipe­line ruptured - Brine escaped into a river which resulted in a fish kill - However, the spill was of short duration - Potacan blamed the rupture on a contractor's negli­gence - Shortly before, Potacan had been fined $20,000 for another spill from a different pipeline - Potacan was charged under the Clean Water Act with releasing a contaminant which endangered the health of animals (i.e., fish) - Potacan pleaded guilty - The New Brunswick Provincial Court imposed a $3,000 fine and a two year term of probation - Terms of the probation order included (1) an order to install an automatic monitoring and alarm system, (2) the development of an envi­ronmental contingency plan and (3) a $12,000 payment to support a fish habitat enhancement program.

Pollution Control - Topic 9276

Offences - Sentences, fines and penalties - Discharge of pollutant - [See Pollution Control - Topic 9185 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bata Industries Ltd. (1992), 7 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 245 (Ont. Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Fraser Inc. (1993), 139 N.B.R.(2d) 125; 357 A.P.R. 125 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Clean Water Act, S.N.B. 1989, c. C-6.1, sect. 12(1)(a) [para. 3]; sect. 12(1)(b), sect. 25(1)(b) [para. 2].

Provincial Offences Procedure Act, S.N.B. 1987, c. P-22.1, sect. 74(1) [para. 32]; sect. 74(3) [para. 33]; sect. 74(8) [para. 34].

Counsel:

J.T. Keith McCormick, for the Crown;

Robert G. Vincent, Q.C., for the defendant.

This case was heard at Sussex, New Brunswick, before Cain, P.C.J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, who imposed the following sentence on November 29, 1996.