Third Party: Forest Practices Board
APPEAL NO. 1998-FOR-04
The appeal issue was in regard to penalty assessment—whether non-Code contraventions could be considered. The Board agreed with the Appellant that it would be improper to consider former trespass violations of the Forest Act when calculating a penalty under the Code. However, the appeal was dismissed because the FAC decided that the penalty amount was justified for other reasons.
Appeal dismissed.
FAC Decision - http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/1998for04.pdf
Third Party: Forest Practices Board
APPEAL NO. 1998-FOR-06
This appeal involved unauthorized timber harvesting on Crown land adjacent to private property. The Board joined the appeal to argue that a section 96 contravention is not restricted to those who “knowingly” cut timber unlawfully. It also argued that due diligence is not a defence to the contravention, and that a concurrent finding that the appellant did not ascertain the boundaries of private property does not amount to double jeopardy because it involves a different legal prohibition. The FAC agreed and upheld the section 96 contravention findings, rescinded one other contravention determination, and varied the penalty.
Appeal allowed in part.
FAC Decision - http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestAct/1998for06_1998fab04.pdf
Third Party: Forest Practices Board
APPEAL NO. 1998-FOR-07
Riverside appealed three contravention determinations relating to road construction, maintenance and damage to the environment that resulted from a landslide that occurred months later. The Board joined the appeal to argue that a forest practice and the environmental damage it brings about need not be contemporaneous for the provisions in section 45 of the Code to operate: if a given forest practice causes environmental damage that only manifests itself later, the prohibition still applies. The FAC agreed, and found that the slide was caused by inadequate measures to maintain natural drainage in the aftermath of Riverside’s logging activity, and that Riverside was not acting in full compliance with its approved plans and permits, so the ‘compliance with plans’ defence was not available. It dismissed a contravention relating to the failure to install a ditch block, but upheld the contravention of the Forest Road Regulation requirement to ensure that road drainage systems are functional.
Appeal allowed in part.
Third Party: Forest Practices Board
APPEAL NO. 1998-FOR-09
The appeal issue was whether there can be a finding of multiple contraventions for the same act due to the operation of law (e.g., where a contravention of a regulation is also automatically a contravention of the Act). The FAC confirmed its past rulings that this does not constitute “double punishment” and does not create an unfairness provided that a single penalty is assessed for the single legal prohibition.
Appeal dismissed.
