R. v. St. Paul (Town), (1993) 150 A.R. 372 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Dzenick, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 26, 1993
• Citations: (1993), 150 A.R. 372 (ProvCt)

R. v. St. Paul (1993), 150 A.R. 372 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. The Town of St. Paul

(Docket No. C030015538-5)

Indexed As: R. v. St. Paul (Town)

Alberta Provincial Court

Dzenick, P.C.J.

November 26, 1993.

Summary:

A town was making improvements to its municipal water supply. The town wanted to extend a water pipeline inlet further out into a lake. In order to make the extension, the town had to construct a temporary working pad extending from the shore out into the lake. The town failed to obtain the necessary permits before constructing the pad. The town was charged under s. 31(1) of the Fisheries Act with alteration of a fish habitat and under ss. 5(2) and 62(b) of the Water Resources Act with interference with the development, conservation or management of water.

The Alberta Provincial Court acquitted the town.

Criminal Law - Topic 213

General principles - Common law de­fences - De minimus or trifling matters - [See Waters - Topic 8083 ].

Fish and Game - Topic 2105

Fishing offences - Defences - Officially induced error - A town received the nec­essary permits before proceeding with major alterations to its water supply sys­tem - Later, it became necessary to extend a pipeline's inlet further into the lake - The provincial authorities author­ized the cost of extension as part of the main pro­ject - There was no mention of a need to obtain another permit - Previously, the town had relied upon the provincial au­thorities to advise on planning and envi­ron­mental approval when the financing of a project was being considered - When the town constructed a temporary construction pad in the lake, it was charged under the Fish­eries Act and the Water Resources Act - The Alberta Prov­incial Court observed that the defence of officially induced error of law was prob­ably applicable - See para­graphs 157 to 185.

Fish and Game - Topic 2168

Fishing offences - Harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat - A town was charged with the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat under s. 31(1) of the Fisheries Act - Section 31(5) defined fish habitat as an area of water upon which "fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes" - The Alberta Provin­cial Court stated that "fish habitat" meant more than just "water frequented by fish" - The Court stated that s. 31(5) of the Fisheries Act, "must be interpreted in terms of the protection of physical habitat factors necessary for the protection of fisheries rather than protection of phy­si­cal habitat factors not required for the protec­tion of fisheries" - See paragraph 44.

Fish and Game - Topic 2168

Fishing offences - Harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat - A town upgraded its water supply - In order to move a pipeline inlet further out into a lake, it had to build a temporary construction pad in the lake near the shore for the heavy equipment to operate from - The town was charged under s. 31(1) of the Fisheries Act with the harmful alter­ation, disruption or destruction of fish habitat - The area near the pad was wind swept containing sparse vegetation and unsuitable as a spawning ground - The Alberta Provincial Court acquitted the town because the Crown failed to prove that the area affected was a fish habitat - The court also observed that the Crown failed to prove that the pad had caused any harm - See paragraphs 46 to 71.

Practice - Topic 5367

Dismissal of action - Grounds, general and want of prosecution - De minimus or trifling matters - [See Waters - Topic 8083 ].

Waters - Topic 8083

Offences - Interference - What constitutes - A town upgraded its water supply - In order to move a pipeline inlet further out into a lake, it had to build a temporary construction pad in the lake near the shore for the heavy equipment to operate from - The town failed to obtain the necessary permits and was charged under ss. 5(2) and 62(b) of the Water Resources Act with interfering with the present or future de­velopment, conserva­tion or management of water - The work was done in accord­ance with recognized engin­eering practices and had little or insignifi­cant adverse impact - The Alberta Prov­incial Court applied the doctrine of de minimis and acquitted the town - See paragraphs 72 to 156.

Waters - Topic 8092

Offences - Defences - Officially induced error - [See Fish and Game - Topic 2105 ].

Waters - Topic 8093

Offences - Defences - De minimus doc­trine - [See Waters - Topic 8083 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 3 C.R.(3d) 30; 7 C.E.L.R. 53, refd to. [para. 31, Appen­dix].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 145, refd to. [para. 31, Appen­dix].

R. v. Daishowa Canada Co. (1993), 135 A.R. 179; 33 W.A.C. 179 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, Appendix].

R. v. Fowler, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 213; 32 N.R. 230; 9 C.E.L.R. 115, refd to. [Ap­pendix].

R. v. Paul, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 621; 42 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 47, Appendix].

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 289; 42 C.R.(3d) 113; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 385, consd. [para. 76, Appendix].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [Appendix].

Multiform Manufacturing Co. et autres v. R. et autres, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 624; 113 N.R. 373; 32 Q.A.C. 241; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 157, refd to. [Appendix].

British Columbia v. Henfrey Samson Bélair Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 24; 97 N.R. 61; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 726, refd to. [Appen­dix].

R. v. British Columbia (1992), 66 B.C.L.R.(2d) 84 (S.C.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Robertson (1882), 6 S.C.R. 52, refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Cyanamid Canada Inc. (1981), 11 C.E.L.R. 31 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Stearns-Roger Engineering Co., [1973] 2 W.W.R. 669; 10 C.C.C.(2d) 374 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Richmond Plywood Corp. (1981), 63 C.C.C.(2d) 99 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Douglas Lake Cattle Co. and Neilsen (A.), 5 F.P.R. 40, refd to. [Appen­dix].

R. v. Toronto Electric Commissioners (1991), 6 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 303 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. MacMillan Bloedel Industries Ltd. (1973), 41 D.L.R.(3d) 247 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Hundal (S.) (1993), 149 N.R. 189; 22 B.C.A.C. 241; 38 W.A.C. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. McLean, 17 C.C.C. 84, refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Cancoil Thermal Corp. and Parkinson (1986), 14 O.A.C. 225; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 295 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. McKay and Brown (1983), 4 F.P.R. 304 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appen­dix].

R. v. MacCabe (1981), 3 F.P.R. 80 (N.S. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Hughes and Van Straten (1985), 4 F.P.R. 268 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Forde (1982), 3 F.P.R. 312 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Kelsey (1985), 4 F.P.R. 282 (Nfld. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Singh, [1950] 2 W.W.R. 835 (P.C.), refd to. [Appendix].

Winnipeg Film Society v. Webster, [1964] S.C.R. 280, refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Barbour (G.E.) Co. (1983), 48 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 126 A.P.R. 236; 12 C.E.L.R. 111 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Belliveau (1987), 80 N.S.R.(2d) 382; 200 A.P.R. 382 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

Ship Reward (1818), 2 Dods. 265; 165 E.R. 1482 (H.L.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Western Forest Industries Ltd. (1978), 9 C.E.L.R. 57 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. Richmond Plywood Corp. (1981), 3 F.P.R. 129 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. McIntyre Mines Ltd. (1978), 5 Alta. L.R.(2d) 201 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix].

R. v. MacDougall, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 605; 44 N.R. 560; 54 N.S.R.(2d) 562; 112 A.P.R. 562, refd to. [Appendix].

Statutes Noticed:

Environmental Protection and Enhance­ment Act, S.A. 1992, c. E-13.3, gen­erally [para. 91].

Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-14, gen­erally [Appendix].

Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, sect. [para. 32]; sect. 31(5) [paras. 32, 33]; sect. 33(2) [para. 45].

Water Resources Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. W-5, generally [Appendix]; sect. 1(v) [paras. 84, 135]; sect. 5(1)(d) [paras. 73, 77]; sect. 5(2) [paras. 5, 91]; sect. 62(b) [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Côté, P.-A., Interpretation of Legisla­tion in Canada (2nd Ed. 1992), pp. 219 [Appendix]; 223 [para. 75, Appendix]; 395 [Appendix].

Driedger, E.A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 8, 207 [Appen­dix].

Kastner, Nancy S., Mistakes of Law and the Defence of Officially Induced Error (1985-86), 28 Cr. L.Q. 308, p. 322 [Appendix].

Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes (12th Ed. 1969), pp. 28, 240 [Appendix].

Swaigen, J., Regulatory Offences in Canada, pp. 202 to 206 [Appendix].

Counsel:

Leo Wenden and Irvine Yaverbaum, for the Crown;

Paul G. Sully, David Reay and Larry Rey­nolds (Messrs. Brownlee Fryett), for the Town of St. Paul.

This matter was heard in St. Paul, Alberta, by Dzenick, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on November 26, 1993.