519 672 2121
Close mobile menu

When environmental penalties when first proposed, one of the big concerns of the business community was the risk of double jeopardy: giving information to the Ministry of the Environment in the hope of minimizing an environmental penalty, only to have that same information used against one in a prosecution.

In January, this issue came to court for the first time. However, the MOE decided to duck. Heico 2004 Member Inc. paid a $7800 penalty for a routine discharge from its steel mill, which failed the rainbow trout acute lethality test. The effluent caused 100% mortality in 24 hr, contravening O.Reg 214/95 (MISA: Effluent Monitoring and Effluent Limits – Iron and Steel Manufacturing). On January 21, 2010, the company also pleaded guilty to 3 EPA violations under the same regulation: failing to sample and perform required lethality and toxicity tests on its steel mill effluent.  Heico was fined $5000 per count (total: $15,000 + VFS).  The Crown withdrew a fourth charge that duplicated the EP the company had paid.

According to the prosecutor, “the facts did not warrant” both a prosecution and an EP. We will have to wait and see what sorts of facts do.

News & Views

Blog

The more you understand, the easier it is to manage well.

View Blog

The meaning of “consent” and why it matters in the Hockey Canada case

The legal definition of consent is clear: it must be a voluntary, affirmative, and ongoing a…

Injured in a car accident while working? WSIB may not be your only option

If you’re injured in a car accident while working in Ontario, you might be surprised to lear…