Summary

Keywords

Criminal law — Fisheries — Federal offences — Evidence — Applicants charged with offences relating to deposit of deleterious substances contrary to Fisheries Act — Trial judge finding that effluent analysis results were reliable — Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that trial judge had not mistakenly applied presumption of reliability — Fisheries Act, R.S.C., c. F 14, s. 36(3).

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicants operate a metal mine. They were charged with 100 counts under the Fisheries Act. Several of the counts related to the deposit of deleterious substances with a concentration exceeding regulatory standards. The evidence in support of the charges included effluent analysis results. During the trial, the applicants agreed with the Crown that the results were admissible at trial, but they challenged their reliability.

The trial judge found that the analysis results were reliable. For the offences relating to the deposit of deleterious substances, she held that the analysis results constituted proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicants were guilty on most of the counts. The trial judge convicted the applicants of 93 counts and sentenced them to pay a fine of $15 million for all of the offences.

On appeal, the applicants argued that the trial judge had mistakenly applied a presumption that the analysis results were reliable. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not applied a presumption of reliability. Rather, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had found the analysis results to be reliable after considering all of the evidence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Lower Court Rulings