Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

Consolidated Maybrun Mines Limited and J. Patrick Sheridan, Appellants v. Her Majesty The Queen, Respondent

País/Territorio
Canadá
Tipo de la corte
Nacional - corte superior
Fecha
Apr 30, 1998
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
Supreme Court of Canada
Juez
Lamer
LHeureux-Dubé
Gonthier
Cory
McLachlin
Iacobucci
Bastarache
Número de referencia
[1998] 1 S.C.R. 706
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Cuestiones jurídicas, Recursos minerales
Palabra clave
Procedimientos judiciales/procedimientos administrativos Corte/tribunal Infracciones/sanciones
Resumen
The appellant company owned a gold and copper mine. After inspecting the mine, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment concluded that it was abandoned and that transformers containing PCBs presented a risk of environmental contamination. Despite numerous efforts to have the company take corrective action, the condition of the site did not change. In 1987, the Ministry issued an order, under s. 17 of the Environmental Protection Act, and required the appellants, inter alia, to clean the concrete stained by spillage of contaminated oil, and to drum the contaminated material. The appellants did not appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board and basically disregarded the order. When charged by the Ministry with failing to comply with the order, the appellants submitted by way of defense that the order was invalid. They argued that there were no reasonable grounds, as required by s. 17(2) of the Act, to believe that the situation at the mine constituted an environmental risk. The trial judge concluded that the orders were valid and ordered the appellants to pay a fine. The Ontario Court held that by reviewing the validity of the order, the trial judge had exceeded his jurisdiction and encroached on the Environmental Appeal Board’s functions. The Court of Appeal affirmed that judgment. The Supreme Court held that the appeal should be dismissed. The Court emphasized that the question of whether a penal court may determine the validity of an administrative order on a collateral basis depended on the statute under which the order was made. In this case, a review of the Environmental Protection Act lead to the conclusion that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the order. The purpose of the Act was primarily to prevent contamination of the province’s environment. Permitting a person to whom an order was directed to collaterally attack the order at the stage of penal proceedings would encourage conduct contrary to the Act’s objectives and would tend to undermine its effectiveness. What was important was on whom the legislature intended to confer jurisdiction to hear the question raised. Since in this case the legislature set up a specialized tribunal to hear questions relating to the environment and to take the appropriate action necessary to prevent it from being contaminated, permitting a penal court to answer such questions in lieu of the Environmental Appeal Board, which was established precisely for this purpose, would undermine the scheme set up by the Act.
Texto completo
1998scc34.html