Menu
close
Contact

Search Results

File bcfpb_appeal

Allan Therrien v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Forest Practices Board APPEAL NO. 2002-FOR-004 The appeal addressed the adequacy of circumstantial evidence to prove contravention of unauthorized timber harvesting. The Board joined to argue that proof of mens rea, i.e. that the person “knowingly” trespassed is not required. Appeal dismissed. FAC Decision: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/2002for004.pdf
File bcfpb_appeal

Forest Practices Board v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Western Forest Products Ltd. APPEAL NO. 2002-FOR-005 The appeal raised a number of issues concerning stop work orders, which were settled through a consent order with attached joint submissions of the parties. Consent Order: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/2002for005.pdf
File bcfpb_appeal

Weyerhaeuser Company Ltd. v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Forest Practices Board APPEAL NO. 2002-FOR-007(a) This appeal was about the limitation period (deadline) for enforcement of Code penalties. The FAC upheld the findings of contravention, but rescinded two administrative penalties that were imposed after the limitation period expired. FAC Decision: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/2002for007a.pdf
File bcfpb_appeal

International Forest Products Ltd. v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Forest Practices Board APPEAL NO. 2002-FOR-002 Interfor requested administrative review of a forest development plan approval in relation to a cutblock that contained marbled murrelet habitat on the Sunshine Coast. When the ministry review panel quashed the approval for the cutblock, Interfor appealed to the FAC. The Board argued that the Code did […]
File bcfpb_appeal

Rodney and Linda Gilbert v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Forest Practices Board APPEAL NO. 2001-FOR-001 This appeal concerned the vicarious liability provisions of the Forest Practices Code (the Code), and whether a contract logger who carried out unauthorized timber harvesting was acting as an agent for landowners who were unaware of his conduct, but who had retained him and received economic benefit […]
File bcfpb_appeal

Forest Practices Board v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Zeidler Forest Industries Ltd. APPEAL NO.2001-FOR-002 The Board appealed a review panel’s administrative penalty determination, which reduced a penalty from $80,000 to $5,000. The Board argued that the penalty should reflect both economic gain from the contravention and environmental damage. The FAC agreed and increased the penalty to recoup an economic gain of […]
File bcfpb_appeal

Lloyd Bentley v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Forest Practices Board APPEAL NO. 2001-FOR-003 The appeal concerned unauthorized harvesting on Crown land adjacent to private land, and whether the defence of "officially induced error" applies to administrative penalties, given that it is only expressly mentioned in the offence provisions of Code. The Board joined the appeal to argue that the defence […]
File bcfpb_appeal

Forest Practices Board v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Chetwynd Forest Industries APPEAL NO. 2001-FOR-004(a) The Board initiated this appeal due to concerns about procedural fairness for a contractor who was not given an opportunity to be heard, but whose actions led to a contravention determination for which it was potentially contractually liable. The FAC decided that no determination was made against […]
File bcfpb_appeal

Takla Development Corporation v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Forest Practices Board APPEAL NO. 2001-FOR-006 Takla appealed a contravention determination and redetermination of an administrative penalty based on a previous FAC decision (1999-FOR-05, discussed below), on the grounds that it had exercised due diligence and that the penalty was excessive. The Board provided written submissions on due diligence and penalty. The FAC […]
File bcfpb_appeal

Forest Practices Board v. Government of British Columbia

Third Party: Crestbrook Forest Industries APPEAL NO. 2000-FOR-005 The Board appealed a review panel determination concerning whether Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd. treated an area with Armillaria (root rot) as required by its silviculture prescription. After appealing, new evidence became available to the Board which supported the position of Crestbrook, so the parties consented to the […]
1 2 3 4 … 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