Ecojustice has done another important public service by
prosecuting Cadillac Fairview for slaughtering migratory birds,
including endangered species, with a particularly lethal set of
mirrored buildings, the Yonge Corporate Centre
("YCC") office buildings in Toronto.
According to Judge Melvyn Green in Liat Podolsky
("EcoJustice") v. Cadillac Fairview Corp. et
al, CADILLAC FAIRVIEW CORP. LTD., YCC LTD. and CF/REALTY
HOLDINGS INC. did all breach the Environmental Protection
Act)and the federal Species at Risk Act in 2010
by reflecting light from their mirrored buildings in a Toronto
ravine, which lured huge numbers of birds to their deaths. However,
the companies were acquitted of the charges, on the grounds of due
diligence; in 2010, they had been among the most
conscientious building owners in Toronto about bird safety.
This defence would not succeed a second time, unless they
install the new reflective films that slash bird strike deaths.
Other buildings will have to do the same.
Reflected light from mirrored buildings lures thousands of
migratory and endangered birds to their deaths every year. We used
to think that too much light at night was the main culprit, but the
daytime carnage can be even larger.
Judge Green's legal analysis of the actus reus (the
substance of each offence) is impeccable and will set an important
precedent: emissions and reflections of light from buildings, which
lure birds to their deaths, do breach the Environmental Protection
Act and the Species at Risk Act.
I must admit, however, that I found his explanation of his
conclusion on due diligence less clear and less persuasive. It
seemed to be based on findings that Cadillac Fairview had been
generally conscientious on other bird issues, such as reducing
unnecessary light at night; that they did take some remedial
action after the charges were laid; that without their cooperation,
FLAP would not have been able to collect the evidence of the large
numbers of birds killed at their buildings; and that they
would have had to compromise other important values, or at least
make substantially more effort, to have avoided the offence.
To me, all of these factors go to sentence, not liability. As I
understand the law on due diligence, it must relate to efforts made
to avoid the specific offence charged, and not to a
general attitude of overall compliance and responsibility, or to
efforts to prevent other offences. I do not see, in the
judgment, evidence that Cadillac Fairview had made any serious
effort to prevent these specific offences , i.e., the killing
of large numbers of migratory and endangeread birds during the
charge period by reflected light from its buildings. They had
shown some interest in the issue, and had made some inquiries of
FLAP, but they had not retained a consultant, or even FLAP itself,
to develop effective remedial measures.
Thus, I would have convicted Cadillac Fairview, but imposed only
a modest fine, in view of the factors that Judge Green identifies.
Quite possibly, I would have imposed a minimal fine, in exchange
for an order requiring Cadillac Fairview to install the bird safe
coating throughout the YCC, and to evaluate whether the same
coating was necessary on its other buildings.
But then, Judge Green heard the evidence and arguments, and I
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).