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 licence. The FAC found that the officially induced error defence did not apply: given all of the maps and information he had before him to determine those boundaries, his attempt to rely on this general statement by a government employee was unreasonable in the circumstances. The FAC reduced the administrative penalty from $22,000 to $14,500 due to an error of fact relating to a previous contravention by the appellant.
Appeal allowed, in part.
FAC Decision: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/2002for010a.pdf
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 construction complied with the legal requirements and the landslides were not foreseeable, so there was no contravention and issue of due diligence did not arise.
Appeal allowed.
FAC Decision: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/2003for005b_006b.pdf
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.
Appeal allowed, in part.
FAC Decision: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/2003for004a.pdf
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. Mr. Cork also appealed. A consent order confirmed the contravention and increased the penalty to reflect compensation to the Crown ($47,000) and deterrence ($13,000).
Appeal allowed.
Consent Order: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/2003for007a_008a.pdf
