Canada: R. v. Syncrude Canada Ltd. 2010 ABPC 229 — A Case of Overstated Significance?

1. Introduction

On June 25, 2010 Syncrude Canada Ltd. ("Syncrude") was found guilty on two charges arising out of the death of approximately 1,600 ducks in its settling pond in Northern Alberta. The charges were brought pursuant to Alberta's Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, (the "EPEA") and Canada's Migratory Birds Convention Act (the "MBCA").1 Both the EPEA and the MBCA provide statutory "due diligence" defences.2 Syncrude raised a number of additional defences including an act of God, abuse of process and officially induced error.

This decision has received considerable media attention. It is being heralded as a monumental victory for environmentalists and by some commentators as devastating to the oil sands industry. Some commentators have gone further to suggest that this decision undermines any comfort that businesses can take from the fact that they have an environmental approval for their operations. In our opinion, this decision is not as menacing to industry as some of the commentators would lead us to believe.

The message in this decision is not that tailings ponds are illegal or contrary to the prohibitions in environmental legislation nor is it that companies must achieve a standard of perfection to prevent waterfowl from coming in contact with the hazardous substances contained in tailings. To the contrary, the message is simply that companies are obligated to take all reasonable measures to avoid foreseeable harm to wildlife and, at a minimum, to comply with the requirements of their environmental plans and approvals.

2. Background

As part of its oil sands operations in the Fort McMurray region of northern Alberta, Syncrude operates a large settling basin, the Aurora Settling Basin (the "Basin"). The Basin is a large artificial pond, approximately the size of 640 football fields,3 used to extract water from the tailings that result from the processing of the tar sand deposits. The tailings, which are deposited into the Basin by large pipes, are generally composed of water, sand and bitumen that remain after the processing of the oil sands. The Bitumen is a viscous material with the consistency of roofing tar and is found throughout the Basin as strands, lumps and mats. Bitumen mats on the surface can trap waterfowl that land on the basin leading to almost certain death.

Deterring waterfowl from the Northern Alberta oil sands tailings ponds presents many challenges due to the proximity of the Athabasca River and Peace Athabasca Delta, because tailings ponds are indistinguishable from natural water bodies for many species of birds and because tailings ponds are warmer than other water bodies in the area and, as result, tend to thaw earlier and become preferential landing sites in the early spring break up. Expert evidence during the trial indicated that some waterfowl will die in the oil sands tailings ponds regardless of deterrence efforts and even more birds will die without effective deterrents.

3. Facts

Approximately 1,600 ducks died on April 28, 2008, after they landed on the Basin. The migratory birds got stuck in the tailings and sank to the bottom. The Basin was constructed and maintained with the approval of the Alberta Government pursuant to Syncrude's mineral surface lease which requires compliance with Division 2 of Part 2 of the EPEA respecting approvals, registrations and certificates. In addition, Syncrude received Environmental Resources Conservation Board approval for the Aurora mine required under Sections 10 and 12 of the Alberta Oil Sands Conservation Act. According to the decision, Syncrude obtained a combined EPEA approval for both its Mildred Lake and Aurora mines effective June 24, 2007 and pursuant to paragraphs 6.1.76, 6.1.77 and 6.1.78 of that approval, was required to submit to the Government of Alberta a Waterfowl Protection Plan.4 This plan was to include techniques and procedures for comprehensive waterfowl deterrent and monitoring programs.

The Fort McMurray area where the Basin is located is a region second only to the Prairie Parklands in importance for migratory birds during breeding season and the area lies beneath the Central and Mississippi Flyways for migratory waterfowl.5 In Northern Alberta, waterfowl spring migration is closely tied to the break-up of water bodies because most species of waterfowl depend on water for rest and foraging stopovers. Waterfowl usually migrate in April and May and as cited in this judgment, some research suggests that break-up in the oil sands region may occur as early as March 31 and migratory birds may appear as much as two weeks earlier than that.6

Syncrude submitted to the Government of Alberta as required pursuant to its licences and approvals a combined 2007 Waterfowl Protection Plan for its Mildred Lake operation and Aurora mine (the "Plan") indicating that it had a Bird and Environmental Team ("BET") consisting of 8 employees providing full weekly coverage, 67 scare cannons, 27 effigies, 17 rafts and 13 boats.7 The Plan had not been approved by the Government of Alberta, but Syncrude did not receive notice of this until after the April 28, 2008 incident.

In the spring of 2008, neither Syncrude's BET team leader, nor the team itself had any formal training in dealing with bird behaviour or deterrence and the team members were only scheduled to work Monday through Thursday each week. When BET arrived to begin work in spring of 2008, they only had access to one truck, whereas in previous years they had access to as many as four trucks. The evidence at trial established that Syncrude did not commence deploying deterrence until April 14, 2008. As a result, Syncrude did not have sound cannons deployed on the perimeter of the Basin before the birds were discovered on April 28, 2008. In fact, the Plan called for cannons to be placed no further than 240 metres apart on land or water and the evidence produced at trial revealed that Syncrude did not have enough cannons to achieve this density.8

As a comparison, the court looked at the procedures of two competitors. In 2008, Shell Albian Sands commenced setting up its deterrence program on March 24 and land cannons were placed on April 3 and between April 14 and May 1 floats were tested and set up was completed. Suncor's cannon deployment was initiated on April 8.9

4. Syncrude's Position

Syncrude's advanced the following arguments at trial included the following:

  1. With respect to the federal charge, the Crown had failed to prove that Syncrude's activities were unlawful since the company was acting pursuant to provincial licences, permits, leases and approvals.
  2. With respect to both charges, that it had established that it used due diligence to avoid the contamination of birds in its tailings pond.
  3. It was impossible for Syncrude to prevent birds from landing on its tailings pond and the defence of impossibility should apply.
  4. The proceedings were an abuse of process because Syncrude complied with all required approvals, permits, licences and leases.
  5. The matter was too small to be of public interest and the doctrine of de minimus should apply to prevent a conviction.
  6. The death of the ducks was the result of an Act of God and therefore no conviction should be entered.

Although the court reviewed the elements of each offence and whether in fact Syncrude had violated the provisions of the EPEA and MBCA, the main issue was whether Syncrude had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that waterfowl would not be contaminated in its Basin, regardless of whether or not they could ensure absolutely against wildlife contamination.

The court determined that Syncrude had failed to establish the defence of due diligence. Pursuant to its EPEA approval, Syncrude was obligated to have in place a system to prevent waterfowl from landing on the tailings pond and to ensure effective operation of that deterrent system. Specifically the court held that, "Syncrude did not deploy the deterrents early enough and quickly enough. This failure can be attributed to the absence of an effective documented procedure, inadequate training and expertise, the reduction in staff, the late hiring dates, delay in getting staff to work and not having equipment ready soon enough.... There [was] no evidence to suggest that these acts or omissions were in any way the product of scientific or expert analysis."10

Contrary to Syncrude's submissions, the court held that it was not impossible for Syncrude to comply with the law. In making this determination the court looked at both offenses and the defence of due diligence and ruled that Syncrude could have acted lawfully under the relevant statutes by using due diligence to deter the birds from the Basin. The court conceded that there is no existing industry standard for waterfowl deterrence but accepted as examples of reasonable alternatives, evidence that Shell and Suncor were able to commence deployment in April of 2008 and these operators had more comprehensive written procedures, oversight by individuals with appropriate training and advance planning and preparation equipment. The court acknowledged that while no one could make certain that waterfowl did not land on the Basin on April 28, 2008, the point was that the probability could have been reduced. In short, the court held that Syncrude did not establish a proper system to ensure that wildlife would not be contaminated by the Basin or take reasonable steps to ensure the effective operation of such a system.

Syncrude also argued the defence of "abuse of process". Such a defence may be found in a regulatory context where the accused reasonably believed, on the basis of representations by a senior government official that if it took certain steps and action by a specified date there would be no prosecution and the accused then proceeded to take the action.11 The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that Syncrude was promised that, even if it failed to take all reasonable steps to deter birds from its tailings ponds, it would not be prosecuted.

Syncrude further argued the doctrine de minimis non curat lex, in that the law should not concern itself with such a trivial matter, claiming their deviation was a small trifle and if continued would weigh little or nothing on the public interest and should therefore be overlooked.12 The court dismissed this defence by citing jurisprudence establishing the importance of environmental protection and the collective responsibility. The media attention and publicity of this trial is also arguably further evidence that the offences were not considered trivial by the community at large.


Syncrude argued that by finding the company guilty of the offences would effectively make tailings ponds, which are an essential part of the refining process for Alberta's oil sands, illegal. We fail to see how this decision has this result. By the courts multiple concessions that even a perfect and scientifically advanced waterfowl deterrent plan may have failed to prevent the April 28, 2008 incident, they acknowledged the potential exposure for liability and have set a standard for oil sands operators to take all reasonable steps to ensure such an incident is avoided. The impact of the decision is to force companies to review and update their environmental policies to ensure they are doing their due diligence to prevent contamination or at least the likelihood of contamination. Even though, some might argue that the death of 1,600 ducks is a minor incident with minimal long term effects, the point made by the court was that Syncrude's violation of provincial and federal legislation resulted from Syncrude placing itself in the impossible position to comply with its Plan.

One can further speculate that the outcome of this decision may have been different had the Government of Alberta notified Syncrude prior to the April 2008 incident that the Plan was not approved and had Syncrude complied perfectly with such Plan. If these had been the facts, Syncrude may have been able to establish the defence of due diligence.

The environmental impact of oil sands development cannot be denied and this decision has received considerable publicity, bringing this issue to the forefront of public debate. For the oil sands industry, the ducks and the environment, one can only hope that the resulting public pressure from the notoriety of this decision may force the Government of Canada, the Province of Alberta and the oil sands companies to put more effort into waterfowl deterrent research and perhaps regulatory change which is sensitive to the reality of the industry and the markets.

6. What's Next for Syncrude?

The court has yet to rule on what penalties and fines are to be imposed on Syncrude. The court is scheduled to make the determination on August 20, 2010.

The author wishes to acknowledge and thank Nicholas Hughes for his contribution to this article.


1 R.S.A. 2000, c. E-12 [EPEA] and S.C. 1994, c.22 [MBCA].

2 EPEA, supra note 1, s. 229 and MBCA, supra note 2, s. 13(1.8).

3 2010 ABPC 229 at para. 2 [Syncrude].

4 Syncrude, supra note 3 at para. 4.

5 Ibid. at para. 7.

6 Ibid. at para. 11.

7Ibid. at para. 23.

8 Ibid. at para. 111.

9 Ibid. paras. 35, 36 and 117.

10 Syncrude, supra note 3 at para. 126.

11 Syncrude, supra note 3 at para. 145.

12 Syncrude, supra note 3 at para. 162. The court cited as authority the Supreme Court of Canada decision of Gonthier J., Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031 at para. 55.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.