Third Party: Forest Practices Board
APPEAL NO. 1997-FOR-03

Canfor appealed a small penalty of $150 on the grounds that it was entitled to the due diligence defence because its contractor admitted that it was solely at fault because it failed to follow Canfor’s ribbons when mechanically brushing along a forest road. The FAC had previously ruled that the defence was not available in an earlier decision, and Canfor presented no evidence or argument. The Board joined the appeal to support the finding that due diligence was not a defence; however, there are instances in which the interests of justice are best served by having a determination made against a contractor or subcontractor. Such a determination is unlikely to be made due to the wording of Ministry Policy 16.10. The Board argued that the failure to make a determination against a contractor in a case where the contractor admits fault is an injustice which may undermine the public’s confidence in the forest practices regime. It suggested that the FAC might make comment on the Ministry Policy.

The FAC dismissed the appeal and declined to comment on the Ministry Policy.

Appeal dismissed.

FAC Decision: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/1997for03.pdf