Third Party: Forest Practices Board
APPEAL NO. 96/08

The appeal concerned the meaning of “damage” to Crown timber in section 96 of the Code. Rustad’s logging caused minor damage to 32 trees by scarring or gouging, and the issue was whether it was substantial enough to amount to a contravention. The Board concurred with the views of the Ministry in this case, that “damage” is used broadly, and encompasses injury to non-economic as well as economic values. The FAC agreed, and found that section 96 prohibits means damage in the ordinary sense of the word, and is not restricted to damage related to economic loss. It confirmed the contravention, and agreed with the review panel that no penalty was warranted in the circumstances.

Appeal dismissed.

FAC Decision: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/96-08.pdf