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

Last Updated: August 5 2010
Article by Kimberly J. Howard

Most Read Contributor in Canada, September 2018

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 Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions