R. v. Potacan Mining Co., (1996) 185 N.B.R.(2d) 372 (PC)

• Judge: Cain, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: July 04, 1996
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1996), 185 N.B.R.(2d) 372 (PC)

R. v. Potacan Mining Co. (1996), 185 N.B.R.(2d) 372 (PC);

    185 R.N.-B.(2e) 372; 472 A.P.R. 372

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 in the Right of the Province of New Brunswick on the information of Yvon Trembley, an inspector under the Clean Environment Act (informant) v. Potacan Mining Company (defendant)

Indexed As: R. v. Potacan Mining Co.

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Cain, P.C.J.

July 4, 1996.

Summary:

A potash mining company used a long pipeline to carry a brine solution from the mine to the Bay of Fundy. The company detected a leak and the pipeline was shut down. An outside contractor repaired the leak. The contractor failed to install all the flange bolts at a joint. The following day, the gasket failed and 200 gallons of brine escaped into a brook. The company was charged under s. 33(1)(b) of the Clean Envi­ronment Act with failing to operate the mine in accordance with the terms and conditions of its Certificate of Approval. It was an absolute liability offence. The company pleaded guilty.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court imposed a $20,000 fine.

Pollution Control - Topic 9183

Offences - Sentencing - Considerations - A mining company had a pipeline repaired by an independent contractor - The repairs were faulty and 200 gallons of a brine solution escaped into a brook - The min­ing com­pany was charged under s. 33(1)(b) of the Clean Environment Act - In determin­ing sentence, the New Bruns­wick Provin­cial Court reviewed the case law and set forth eight factors to be con­sidered in imposing sentence on a corpo­rate defend­ant - See paragraphs 22 to 30.

Pollution Control - Topic 9276

Offences - Sentences, fines and penalties - Discharge of pollutant - A mining com­pany employed an independent contractor to repair a pipeline - The repairs were faulty and 200 gallons of a brine solution escaped into a brook - The company immediately shut down production and made the repairs - The cost of the repairs and the loss amounted to several hundred thousand dollars - The area of the spill was part of a unique ecological area sup­porting a high use recreational water­shed -However, actual damage was limited - The mine had recently become profit­able ($10,000,000) and it was the com­pany's first offence - Subsequently, the com­pany installed sen­sors on the pipe­line to detect any loss of pres­sure - The Crown sub­mitted that the sen­sors should have been installed when the pipe­line was built - The New Bruns­wick Provincial Court imposed a $20,000 fine.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kenaston Drilling (Arctic) Ltd. (1973), 12 C.C.C.(2d) 383 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. United Keno Hill Mines Ltd. (1980), 10 C.E.L.R. 43 (Yuk. Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Panarctic Oils Ltd. (1983), 43 A.R. 199; 12 C.E.L.R. 78 (N.W.T. Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Canadian Marine Drilling Ltd. (1983), 51 A.R. 359; 13 C.E.L.R. 8 (N.W.T. Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, [1996] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 13 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Irving Oil Ltd., [1996] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 15 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Clean Environment Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. C-6, sect. 33(1)(b) [para. 1].

Counsel:

G. Keith McCormick, for the Crown;

Robert Vincent, Q.C., for the defence.

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 July 4, 1996.