R. v. St. Lawrence Fluorspar Ltd., (1989) 80 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 171 (NFPC)

• Judge: Handrigan, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 19, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1989), 80 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 171 (NFPC)

R. v. St. Lawr. Fluorspar (1989), 80 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 171 (NFPC);

    249 A.P.R. 171

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. St. Lawrence Fluorspar Limited

Indexed As: R. v. St. Lawrence Fluorspar Ltd.

Newfoundland Provincial Court

District of Grand Bank

Handrigan, P.C.J.

September 19, 1989.

Summary:

A company was permitted to operate a fluorspar concentrating mill on the condition that it install an effluent disposal system for its waste water. The system was to limit the solid contaminants in the waste water to 30 parts per million. The company failed to maintain the system and the contaminants exceeded the allowable level. The company was charged with three counts under section 33(2) of the Fisheries Act. The company pleaded guilty.

The Newfoundland Provincial Court imposed a fine of $5,000 on each count.

Pollution Control - Topic 9183

Offences - Sentencing - Considerations - A company was charged with three counts under section 33(2) of the Fisheries Act for discharging waste water into a watercourse which contained suspended solids exceeding the permissible level - The company's discharge exceeded the permitted level by 86 times - Company pleaded guilty - A judge of the Newfoundland Provincial Court stated that the appropriate philosophy in imposing sentence in these matters was that "[P]ollution is a crime ... and pollution offences must be approached as crimes, not as morally blameless technical breaches of a technical standard" - See paragraph 10.

Pollution Control - Topic 9183

Offences - Sentencing - Considerations - A judge of the Newfoundland Provincial Court held that the following were the appropriate considerations in sentencing for polluting a watercourse: Nature of the environment; extent of injury; criminality of conduct; extent of attempts to comply with pollution control standards; remorse; size of corporation; profits realized by committing the offence; and criminal records - See paragraphs 10 to 18.

Pollution Control - Topic 9276

Offences - Sentences, fines and penalties - Discharge of pollutant - A company was allowed to operate a fluorspar concentrating mill on the condition that it install an effluent control system which limited the solid contaminants in its waste water discharge to 30 parts per million - The company's discharge exceeded the permissible level by a minimum of 86 times - Company was charged with three counts of polluting under s. 33(2) of the Fisheries Act - Company pleaded guilty and blamed problem on financial difficulties - The Newfoundland Provincial Court imposed a $5,000 fine on each count - Company was given six months to pay fine - See paragraphs 20 to 21.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. United Keno Hill Mines Limited (1980), 10 C.E.L.R. 43, appld. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Environmental Control (Water and Sewage) Regulations (Nfld.), 1980, generally [para. 1].

Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14, sect. 33(2) [para. 5]; sect. 36 [para. 7].

Counsel:

Donald A. MacBeath, for the Crown;

Michael Crosbie, for the defendant.

This matter was heard by Handrigan, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland Provincial Court, District of Grand Bank, who delivered the following judgment on September 19, 1989.