Third Party: Forest Practices Board
APPEAL NO. 96/05
This appeal raised issues concerning whether due diligence is available as a defence to an administrative contravention determination. The Board did not take a position on the facts in this appeal, but argued that as a matter of law that while due diligence is not a defence to a contravention, evidence that all reasonable care was taken should be taken into account in determining the penalty amount. The Board’s position was that a person should not be allowed to profit from breaking the law, and the public should be compensated for the lost value of its timber and the cost of restoration, regardless of whether due diligence was exercised. The FAC ruled that due diligence is not a defence to a contravention and penalty determination under the Code, and that MacMillan Bloedel did not exercise all reasonable care to avoid the contravention. It also commented that the Ministry should take steps to ensure that timber is not left to deteriorate in trespass situations, as was the case in this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
FAC Decisions: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/96-05b.pdf (due diligence issue) and http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/96-05c.pdf (penalty amount issue).