When fly-rock from a blasting site hits a house, is that a
"discharge" of a "contaminant" that must be
immediately reported to the Ministry of the Environment Spills
Action Centre? Ontario's Court of Appeal says
In Ontario (MOE) v. CastonguayBlasting, the
Ministry of the Environment chose to prosecute Castonguay Blasting,
a blasting company, for just such a rock. There were no errors or
negligence alleged in the blast itself. Castonguay was working for
the Ontario Ministry of Transportation at the time, and the
provincial government's contract specified in detail who should
be notified when fly-rock went out of bounds. This did NOT include
the MOE. Nor had the MOE ever asked the blasting industry to report
When the rock went awry, Castonguay followed the reporting
procedure exactly as directed by MTO, who had a contract supervisor
at the site. Since neither Castonguay nor the MTO representative
considered the fly rock to be a "discharge" of a
"contaminant", no one reported it to the Ministry of the
The MOE prosecuted Castonguay for failing to report the rock, an
offence with a minimum $25,000 fine. The trial court dismissed the
charge, but the Crown won its appeal and the company was found
guilty of failing to report the discharge. Castonguay appealed.
The majority of Ontario's Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. Mr. Justice Blair, in
dissent, found that "adverse effect" as defined under the
Environmental Protection Act (EPA), includes not only the
eight harms listed in that definition, but also a component
involving "something amounting to more than trivial or
minimum harm to or impairment of the natural environment"
in order to trigger liability relating to discharge of a
"contaminant" into the natural environment. In this case,
he found that the fly-rock did no harm, and had, at most a trivial
impact on the natural environment, so was not a
"contaminant" that caused an adverse effect under the
The 2-judge majority disagreed and upheld the conviction,
concluding that for a discharge to have an adverse effect, it need
not impair the quality of the natural environment. They found Mr.
Justice Blair's interpretation of "adverse effect"
was unduly constricted, and failed to reflect the broad purposes of
the EPA, and would, if adopted, remove many problematic activities
connected with the environment from the purview of the Act.
The majority found that the EPA is concerned with uses
of the environment that cause harm to people, animals and property.
They noted that blasting, in many cases, would not harm the
environment and trigger the definition of "adverse
effect" under the Act. However, where the activity discharges
a contaminant like fly-rock into the natural environment, it may
harm people, animals or property. While Castonguay's blasting
activity may have caused only minimal harm to the environment, the
fly-rock it generated did harm property. It was Castonguay's
use of the environment (the air) to disperse a contaminant
(fly-rock) that directly resulted in this harm, they said.
I think this is a nonsensical decision, as well as unfair to
Castonguay. First, why couldn't Castonguay rely on the
directions of its client, the provincial government, about who in
the same provincial government to report to? Second, why can't
regulators be required to tell an industry when they adopt strange
new interpretations of existing laws, before they prosecute them
for not following that new interpretation?
Third, any object that hits any other object (or person) must
travel through the environment (air or water) to get there. Must
every car accident, where anything falls off, be reported to the
MOE now? Every box, ladder or hammer that falls on anyone's
foot outdoors? Food that is dropped outdoors, causing a stain? Must
rioters report the rocks that they have thrown through a window?
Must windows or other bits of buildings be reported when they fall
off? (Likely to cause an adverse effect if they land on someone...)
Must litterers report their litter? What good would the Ministry
accomplish if it received all these reports?
To me, such an over broad decision does not benefit the natural
environment, and makes a mockery of environmental law. But then,
I'm not on the Court of Appeal.
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 Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Ontario's Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change continues to roll out its Climate Change Action Plan with its proposed GHG guide for projects that are subject to the province's Environmental Assessment Act.
The Imperial Oil refinery pled guilty to one offence for discharging a contaminant, coker stabilizer, thermocracked gas, into the natural environment causing an adverse effect and was fined $650,000...
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).