This case was heard in the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal.
Brookfield Gardens Inc. (“Brookfield”) was charged with unlawfully depositing agricultural runoff containing pesticides into water frequented by fish. Environment Canada investigated a fish kill in the North River and found 1,155 dead fish over a 3.8 km stretch, downstream from Brookfield's field. Fisheries Officers then discovered two gullies from the field leading to the river, where soil, water, and foliage samples showed high levels of pesticides. This was in violation of s. 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, and as a result, Brookfield was charged with committing an offence contrary to s. 40(2) of the Fisheries Act.
At trial, Brookfield Gardens Inc. was found not guilty, prompting the prosecution to appeal the decision. The appeal was accepted, the original verdict was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. Brookfield then applied for permission to appeal this decision to enter a new trial. They alleged that the appeal court made the following errors:
Employed an incorrect standard of review in determining the reasonableness of the trial court's decision;
Made a legal error by finding that the trial court overlooked, rejected, and misapprehended facts and evidence;
Based reasonable doubt on conjecture;
Did not appropriately consider the due diligence offence.
All grounds were dismissed in this case. The appeal court applied the correct standard of review when concluding the decision of the trial court was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The trial court was found to have speculated and found facts which were not contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts, which does constitute a legal error. Lastly, it was found that while assessing due diligence, the trial court only considered portions of the evidence provided by the defense witnesses.
The appeal was dismissed.
View the Decision on CanLII: 2018 PECA 2 (CanLII) | R. v Brookfield Gardens Inc. | CanLII
Disclaimer:
Case briefs in our Resource Library are drafted by law students who work or volunteer with East Coast Environmental Law, and East Coast Environmental Law does not guarantee their fullness or accuracy. Library users should not rely on case briefs as comprehensive accounts of the issues, facts, reasoning, or outcomes at stake in any given case.
If you require more detailed information about a court decision or legal issue, please consider using our Environmental Law Inquiry Service to request information from our staff.