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 from the sale of Crown timber. The Board joined the appeal to make submissions on vicarious liability. The FAC found that the vicarious liability provisions did apply because the timber harvesting was done “for the benefit” of the landowners. The landowners appealed to the BC Supreme Court, which agreed with the FAC.
Appeal allowed in part (on penalty amount issue).
FAC Decision: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/2001for001.pdf
BC Supreme Court Decision: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/02/09/2002bcsc0950.htm
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 $44,157 and determined that a further penalty of $10,000 was appropriate considering a number of factors: the need for a significant deterrent, and the gravity and magnitude of the contravention as indicated by significant damage to the road, tree loss, decreased soil productivity in a riparian area smothered by a landslide, the loss of wildlife habitat and short-term damage to fish habitat. The total penalty for the contraventions was increased to $55,157.
Appeal allowed.
FAC Decision: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/2001for002.pdf
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 of officially induced error ought to be available, assuming the elements of the defence are established, because the administration of justice could be brought into disrepute by denying the defence to a person who is misled by a government official. The Board did not take any position on whether the appellant established a defence in this case. The FAC agreed that the defence is available for administrative penalties, but found that it was not established on the facts.
Appeal allowed in part (on penalty amount issue).
FAC Decision: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/2001for003.pdf
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 the contractor that could be appealed, and that the grounds for appeal and remedies sought were not related to the determination appealed.
Appeal dismissed.
FAC Decision: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/2001for004a.pdf
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 dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
FAC Decision: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/2001for006.pdf
