Menu
close
Contact

Search Results

File bcfpb_appeal

Kucera v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Forest Practices Board APPEAL NO. 2007-FOR-004 This appeal concerned whether a woodlot licensee should be penalized for undertaking forest practices which, although sound forest management, were not authorized by government. Appeal abandoned following settlement discussions.
File bcfpb_appeal

Pope and Talbot Ltd. v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Forest Practices Board Intervenor: Council of Forest Industries APPEAL NO. 2005-FOR-004(b) Pope and Talbot (P&T) appealed a contravention determination on the grounds that it exercised due diligence and the unauthorized harvesting was entirely the responsibility of its contractor. The logging involved a complex harvesting prescription for the management of caribou habitat and heli-skiing, […]
File bcfpb_appeal

Darren Smurthwaite v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Forest Practices Board APPEAL NO. 2005-FOR-015(a) This appeal involved a contravention determination and administrative penalty of $45,000 for damage to karst features, made against the sole director of the corporate licensee. The appeal issue was in regard to when a director or officer of a licensee company is liable for a contravention by […]
File bcfpb_appeal

Weyerhaeuser Company Limited v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Forest Practices Board APPEAL NO. 2004-FOR-004(a) The appeal issue was in regards to whether the licensee could deny that a cutblock required retention of trees for critical deer winter range after the harvest prescription and approval was made on that basis. The appeal was settled by a consent order that confirmed one of […]
File bcfpb_appeal

Weyerhaeuser Company Limited v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Forest Practices Board Intervenor: Sierra Club of Canada APPEAL NO. 2004-FOR-005(b) The appeal concerned unauthorized timber harvesting, and whether Weyerhaeuser could establish a due diligence defence by establishing that it took adequate steps to ensure that its contractors would not harvest timber outside of the cutblock boundaries. Appeal allowed (with dissenting opinion). FAC […]
File bcfpb_appeal

Marilyn Abram v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Forest Practices Board APPEAL NO. 2004-FOR-013 (a) The appeal issue was in regard to the burden of proof for unauthorized harvesting. The appellant argued that government must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the licensee was the one who cut wood without permission. The FAC confirmed that the burden of proof is the […]
File bcfpb_appeal

Steve Noel v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Forest Practices Board APPEAL NO. 2002-FOR-010(a) This appeal concerned whether the appellant was entitled to the defence of officially induced error after unauthorized harvesting outside the boundary of a timber sale licence. Mr. Noel argued that a statement made by a government employee misled him as to the boundary of a timber sale […]
File bcfpb_appeal

Kalesnikoff Lumber Co. v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Forest Practices Board Intervenors: Interior Lumber Manufacturers Assoc., COFI and Coast Forest and Lumber Assoc. APPEAL NO. 2003-FOR-005(a) and 2003-FOR-066(a) The appeal issue was in regards to whether risks of road construction were foreseeable and whether the licensee exercised sufficient care to avoid causing four landslides. The FAC found that the licensee’s road […]
File bcfpb_appeal

Estate of Benjamin Bolen v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Forest Practices Board APPEAL NO. 2003-FOR-004(a) The appeal issue was in regards to whether the appellant contravened his range use plan by overgrazing Crown range, and if so, whether the due diligence defence applied. The FAC upheld the contravention determination, but reduced the administrative penalty from $500 to $300 due to extenuating circumstances. […]
File bcfpb_appeal

Forest Practices Board and Robert Cork v. Government of British Columbia

APPEAL NO. 2003-FOR-007(a) and 2003-FOR-008(a) The Board appealed a contravention and administrative penalty determination on the grounds that the officially induced error defence was not available in the circumstances, and the penalty did not adequately account for the environmental harm caused by loss of Douglas fir and spruce trees that were required to be retained. […]
1 2 3 … 8
The Board conducts its work throughout British Columbia, and we respectfully acknowledge the territories of the many Indigenous Peoples who have lived on these lands since time immemorial.
 linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram